/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15553455]

What philosophers of our time will go down as one of the greats?

Pic related

[Anonymous No.15553935]

>>15553455
John Searle possibly.
I am afraid that your panpsychism isn't the solution to the mind body problem that you think it is.

[Anonymous No.15554001]

Derek Parfit. (He died a couple of years ago, but I think that he broadly fits the category of 'philosophers of our time')

[Anonymous No.15554733]

Nick Land had potential before he went NRx and moved to China

[Anonymous No.15554801]

>>15553455
Am I missing something w/ these analytics. They just seem obscene to me, languishing in faux-scientific technicality and every now and again revealing their hand with some ridiculous argument like the fucking Zombie arg.

[Anonymous No.15554898]

>>15553455
Chalmers? Possibly. Kripke for sure. Perhaps Chomsky, or Fodor as well. I can see Scanlon joining their ranks, if contractarianism keeps gaining traction.

If we are counting everyone who lived in the 21st century, these are already considered the greats: Rawls, Baudrillard, David Lewis, and Putnam. Maybe Parfit as well.

>>15554733
For anyone reading this: this is bait. Nick Land never had any sizable traction in academia, nor had any potential to gain such, he is only popular on /lit/ because of how memeable he is.

>>15554801
What the fuck are you on about? It is literally hard to find a more accessible, non-technical philosopher than Chalmers. I wonder how you would react to Wittgenstein, or Frege...

[Anonymous No.15554911]

>>15553455
chalmers has a good chance. chomsky probably. i get the feeling badiou will become big the way deleuze is now. habermas perhaps

[Anonymous No.15554912]

>>15553455
Carl Benjamin

[Anonymous No.15554915]

>>15554898
>Nick Land never had any sizable traction in academia, nor had any potential to gain such,
no he was pretty influential on continental political philosophy. analytic grad students i know know who he is from their research

[Anonymous No.15554918]

>>15554911
as much as i hate to admit it, add nussbaum to the list. also butler without a doubt

[Anonymous No.15554942]

>>15554915
"pretty influential" and "one of the greats" are wildly different things. I can think of at least 10 more important contemporary continental philosophers and I studied in a very pro-analytical uni.
I know that citations is a shitty metric, but it can give us at least *some* approximation of influence. His most cited work is the thing he wrote on Bataille, and it only has 200 citations, which, for an Anglo, is very very low. There are fucking Germans and Russians who have 20 times that, despite the metric being rigged against them.

[Anonymous No.15554950]

me
this is a simple from my philosophy: i put cock in vagina and i cum feel good

[Anonymous No.15554971]

>>15554898
Land will undoubtably go down as one of the most important thinkers of our time. If you’re measuring greatness by academic status you’ve already got it wrong. The university has been in decline for some time. The most interesting work is being done on the internet now. This will only become clearer as time passes.

[Anonymous No.15555079]

>>15553455
In 20 years when mind upload and strong AI is completely normal all these "hard problem" guys will be thought of the same as the vitalists.

[Anonymous No.15555086]

>nick land
>second rate science fiction writer
>memetic edgelord
>one of the greats
Truly dark times we live in today.

[Anonymous No.15555135]

The man, the legend.

[Anonymous No.15555140]

>>15554971
>Imagine being this brainwashed by a Brazilian laundry board
Perhaps academia is in decline, but /lit/ memes are not the replacement.

[Anonymous No.15555269]

>>15555140
I don’t browse lit much tb h. His books and blog address modernity quite rigorously, unlike academia. Plus wouldn’t a study of memetic exchange be a relevant thing to do seeing as it has a great affect on people’s lives? It’s silly of course but nonetheless important.
>>15555086
>Truly dark times we live in today.
Indeed. So wouldn’t it make sense for someone like land to be one of the most relevant thinkers?

[Anonymous No.15555273]

Curtis Yarvin

[Anonymous No.15555285]

>>15553455
>>15553935
>>15554801
>>15554898
I ended up reading these anti-materialist philosophers (Searle, Nagel, Chalmers) on /lit/'s recommendation after being disappointed with Dennett's materialist view. I have to say, they're even worse. All their arguments are basically the same (the explanatory gap) which they invoke with a million different thought experiments. But these are simple arguments from incredulity and I find them totally unsatisfactory.

Are there any actually decent philosophers of mind who make a case for non-materialism?

[Anonymous No.15555289]

>>15554898
Fodor will go down as the guy who thought evolution isn't real because he has a high school tier understanding of it.

[Anonymous No.15555320]

>>15555285
It's not an argument from incredulity. Materialism has actual gaps in it that genuinely appear unfillable. You can say you believe in materialism in spite of the gaps, but then it's not some objective position, authoritative position, just another faith based system, either faith that the gaps will be filled, or faith that only more matter/energy lies in the gaps, even of we can't prove it.

[Anonymous No.15555325]

>>15555273
no

[Anonymous No.15555378]

>>15555269
>I like someone, so they must be "one of the greats"
You may like >>15555273 as well, similar appeal to minors and midwits.

[Anonymous No.15555406]

>>15555320
I know that there are gaps and I'm not advocating materialism. What I'm saying is that their thought experiments are bad. The Chinese room and Zombies are two examples of bad arguments, because their basis is incredulity. Moreover they provide no alternative.

[Anonymous No.15555421]

>>15555406
That's true. I think it's a big part of why people wind up dissing philosophy as a whole, the entire project just collapsed into nihilism and unsolveable mysteries. Just like Dostoevsky predicted.

[Anonymous No.15555535]

>>15555421
>>15555320
you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.15555800]

>>15555285
>Are there any actually decent philosophers of mind who make a case for non-materialism?
Yes, you just completely misunderstood some of them.

>>15555406
Common sense philosophy BTFO, thousands of academics just lost their job because of you, anon.

>>15555421
Shut the fuck up and read a book instead of feeling that reading SEP and wikipedia articles makes you qualified to spout nonsense on an imageboard.

[Anonymous No.15555935]

>>15555800
Angry little man. Useless post. Don't bother replying I'm not gonna engage with a retard.

[Anonymous No.15555972]

>>15555935
Fine, but GTFO the board and neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.15556202]

Agamben, Giorgio.

[Anonymous No.15556213]

>>15555800
Why not just state the supposedly overwhelming truth you believe to possess that will make everyone go, "Ah, I see, there's no other possible interpretation, it's like 2 + 2 = 4".

[Anonymous No.15556299]

>>15553935
Yeah Searle will be known as a sexual predator and how he has no emeritus status because of what he did to students.

[Anonymous No.15556321]

>>15554898
I've got to Agre, Kripke for sure. If I had to bet 100 whatever currency I would put Kripke. And I have a hunch with Chalmer still stirs up a lot of conversation and I had the pleasure to meet the people who are trying to contradict him and create theories that are against him like Sam Coleman and Jakub.

[Anonymous No.15556447]

Nobody thus far mentioned in this thread.

[Anonymous No.15556466]

>>15556447
Wow, you are so smart, anon

[Anonymous No.15556516]

>>15555135
based

[Anonymous No.15556547]

>>15553455
Not a single one.

[Anonymous No.15556559]

dugin
skallas
brassier

[Anonymous No.15556752]

>>15555140
bruh you realise that land preceded lit

[Anonymous No.15556819]

>>15556752
Do you think I am retarded? Of course earth's surface not covered by a body of water would exist before the internet...

[Anonymous No.15557069]

>>15553455
In the case of continentals I'm pretty sure Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Derrida will be historically studied in the future the way 19th century or early modern philosophers are. With time (this is already happening) more attention will also be paid to Deleuze, Baudrillard, Badiou, and the people they've inspired. I'm guessing people will be reading phenomenologists, existentialists, and poststructuralists for some time.

In the case of analytics one of two things will happen. Option 1: Past big-name analytics become gradually forgotten. This was the fate of most of the 19th century post-Hegelian philosophers, the ones that weren't doing life-philosophy or leftist political philosophy. A lot of their work was proto-analytic, but analytic philosophy was so focused on being ahistorical that they quickly forgot them. The earliest analytics (like Russell and Carnap) cite them a lot, but this stopped around the 1950s or so. Option 2: Some analytics become remembered once they're packaged as systematic philosophers. Expect to see Quine, Putnam, Kripke, Lewis.

Chalmers has a shot at greatness. It depends on where analytic metametaphysics and systematic metaphysics goes from here. He wrote a book called Constructing the World, which is part of an emerging movement in analytic philosophy that seems to be a little more open to systematicity. He's not the only one (another example is Ted Sider's Writing the Book of the World).

[Anonymous No.15557202]

Brenton Tarrant
Sam Hyde
PewDiePie

[Anonymous No.15557236]

>>15553935
Searle is the best living philosopher.

His behavior towards his female (Chinese) students makes me respect him even more. He did nothing wrong, they were just too sensitive. Sexual plays aren't wrong, unless you're castrated.

Nerds and women are the rulers at our universities, which means they are extremely hostile to real men. This is why I will never go into academia.

Searle didn't rape anyone. He didn't humiliate anyone. He just played in ways which are too masculine and high-testosterone to be understood by the contemporary academic mind.

[Anonymous No.15557325]

>>15553455
Heidegger and Wittgenstein are the only true greats of the 20th century. Habermas will be continually influential in political philosophy but I don't think he will stand the test of time. Badiou and Nancy might stand the test of time for French philosophy. The only analytic philosopher that will remain influential is Sellars. If you answer Kripke or Chalmers, you're an actual retard.

[Anonymous No.15557337]

>>15557236
Why did he apologise then?

[Anonymous No.15557372]

>>15557337
Who cares?

You apologise so that people will stop complaining like immature kids.

Prove that he did something wrong.

Add Colin McGinn too, for that matter. Prove that any of them did something wrong.

[Anonymous No.15557387]

>>15557372
Usually apologies are admissions of guilt.

[Anonymous No.15557542]

Pretty sure Zizek will stick around one way or another through his serious more academic texts.

Also Giorgio Agamben for political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15557759]

>>15553935
>John Searle possibly.
Based. He's unironically a good philosopher and him being a victim of MeToo makes me sympathize with him even more.

[Anonymous No.15557838]

>>15557387
Nonsense. Usually apologies mean "leave me alone and I'll pretend I'm sorry".

[Anonymous No.15557906]

>>15557838
They really don't. You may be cunning and use apologies so people leave you alone, but in the mind of the listener an apology is an admission of guilt. This is why it has leverage, it's a kind of negotiation but the other party doesn't know you're negotiating. You humble yourself and "admit" defeat to validate the other party, and in exchange you'e ingratiated to them. But the crux of this exchange is that the other party thinks the apology is real, which is why it's cunning because you're really lying, and a lie isn't a lie if the other party knows it's a lie, it's just an ironic joke.

[Anonymous No.15557987]

>>15556559
>skallas
Lindy man?

[Anonymous No.15559174]

>>15555285
I can make the antiphysicalist case just for you

[Anonymous No.15559197]

>>15556299
Why do you think this is relevant

[Anonymous No.15559237]

>>15557236
>hehe...wanna come back to my CHINESE ROOM later, little chinawoman?

[Anonymous No.15559249]

Land. It's interesting that some posters on /lit/ would even suggest otherwise but academy brainwashing is a bitch.
>>15557069
Most analytics will probably be forgotten entirely.

[Anonymous No.15559273]

>>15557069
>This was the fate of most of the 19th century post-Hegelian philosophers, the ones that weren't doing life-philosophy or leftist political philosophy. A lot of their work was proto-analytic, but analytic philosophy was so focused on being ahistorical that they quickly forgot them.
1. Analytic philosophers aren't ahistorical, they actually cite older thinkers constantly
2. The Scholastics were also similar to contemporary analytic philosophy in some aspects, but that doesn't make them protoanalytics. Their metaphysics are just too dpeculative/rationalistic to be of much use today.
3. Who are these forgotten 19th century thinkers? Brentano is pretty well known still.

[Anonymous No.15559295]

>>15557759
He was legitimely #metooed to be fair
But he is still a great thinker

[Anonymous No.15559314]

>>15553455
>of our time
No one of our time will go down as anything.

[Anonymous No.15559339]

davidson, quine and sellars the top philosophers since heidegger/wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.15559369]

>>15559174
do it faggot

[Anonymous No.15559519]

>>15559273
1. I'm trained as an analytic, if you know what I mean you know I'm not being controversial, I don't mean they're completely a historical but there definitely was a move toward ahistoricity by disengaging with earlier work on purpose. This is the whole 'attack on metaphysics/obscurantism' phase from the beginning of the tradition, after which analytics mainly just responded to themselves. There are people today in the field who only know very basic Hume and Kant. Don't expect every analytic to be invested in learning Proclus or Hegel or something like that.
2. The scholastics actually fell victim to the same thing the 19th century proto-analytics fell victim to. When the early moderns came on the scene, they did what Russell and Moore did and generally stopped engaging them. That's why we don't read the vast scholastic literature today. Even big names like Ockham, Scotus, Abelard, are only studied up to a point.
3. They came in varying traditions, most German. Herbart was probably the first of the bunch since he continued working off of Kant without dipping into German Idealism. He also tried to mathematize psychology. After Herbart you have Bolzano who did work on meaning/propositional realism and set theory (before set theory was properly developed). He was doing work Frege would be doing decades later. Lotze is a third figure, who I know less of, though he did begin the transition away from systematic book-centered philosophy to article-based philosophy. After that, you have a couple of different movements. The Neo-Kantians are one. The Neo-Schopenhauerians are another. Brentano and his circle are a third, that includes Twardowski and through him the Warsaw School, as well as Meinong, and Husserl from whom we get phenomenology, including non-existential 'classical' phenomenology (such as Ingarden). There was also French positivism (Comte), English positivism (Mill, whose empiricist non-utilitarian work is rarely studied), and German positivism or 'empirio-criticism', which was Avenarius and Mach. Lastly there was British Idealism, which it might seem weird to call 'proto-analytic,' but they left us with some important issues, namely Bradley's regress and McTaggart's A-theory vs. B-theory conceptions of time (kind of like how Brentano's intentionality and Meinong's existence/subsistence are also trending analytic topics). Brentano might be 'known' thanks to Chisholm and others, but I don't know if people really read Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint as a whole all that much. Honorable mention: the Americans had two traditions, one is Transcendentalism, the second is Pragmatism. People do care somewhat about them, but I wouldn't say either analytics or continentals completely integrate either into their traditions. On that note, the last 'forgotten thinker' is 20th century, but that would be Whitehead, he also didn't really fit in with analytics despite doing English work. I figure some continentals and 4chan like him though.

[Anonymous No.15559633]

>>15559295
>legitimately
>made a few humorous passes and showed some porn to a student

You are an oversensitive, castrated, Protestant imbecile.

I had homos physically touching my arm on lonely streets and asking me to ''come here with me for a little while'' and, even if I was disgusted for a few minutes and evaded them harshly, I didn't feel ''oppressed''.

Searle's case is even less harmful, because it was in a big university, with guards and lots of people around, outside his office. No chance of being raped or suffering actual violence - even if the door was locked, she could have cried. The woman was just a crybaby.

The woman was also stupid. If I were her, I'd write some dumb book, blackmail Searle into writing a very laudatory preface, then become a famous philosopher for the rest of my life, due to these credentials. This is what smart people, with victorious as opposed to victim mentality, do.

>After a week of working together, Searle locked his office door and "went directly to Ong to grope her," according to the complaint, telling her they were “going to be lovers.” She rejected his proposal, and Searle apologized, paying her the promised $3,000. When he left for vacation the following month, Ong reported the assault to Hudin, the complaint states. Instead of reporting her allegations to upper management, “Hudin told Ong that she would protect her from Searle’s advances” and said Searle “has had sexual relationships with his students and others in the past in exchange for academic, monetary, or other benefits,” the complaint states.

>When Searle returned from vacation, the workplace became “increasingly hostile and awkward,” the complaint states, as he pretended nothing had happened. Searle cut Ong’s salary in about half without explanation and continued to act inappropriately, according to the complaint. He openly watched pornography in front of her, the complaint states, and asked her to log into a “Sugar Baby, Sugar Daddy” website for him. The complaint says Searle also asked Ong to read and respond to his university emails, such as “flirtatious” correspondence with young women, “including UC Berkeley students and foreign students from Europe” who wanted to be his research assistant -- the position Ong held.

>When Ong, who is Asian-American, brought up the topic of American imperialism, Searle responded “American imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let’s go to bed and do that right now!” the complaint states.

Can't see anything wrong in any of that, sorry.

[Anonymous No.15559653]

>>15559633
>around outside his office

Sorry, don't know why I put that comma there. Fixed.

[Anonymous No.15559661]

>>15556202
this

[Anonymous No.15559663]

>>15556299
wait what?

[Anonymous No.15559672]

>>15559519
1. Well there are also movements like analytical Thomism who do more old school metaphysics, but on the whole I agree with you, analytic philosophy on the whole is very much humean and empiricist, although this is a virtue and not a vice on my view (Also, Neoplatonism and Hegelianism has fallen out of favour for quite some time now, so they aren't very relevant currently).
2. The Scholastics are just too distant from modern philosophy metaphysically. The four causes, form and matter, potentiality and actuality, they postulate a lot of entities with no basis on empirical observation, which to the modern Humean appears suspicious and deceptive.
3. Bolzano, Brentano, Husserl, Bradley, Compte and the pragmatists are all well known I think. I don't know all the thinkers you mentioned so it is possible that there are some good stuff there that is unjustly ignored. In regards to Mill's non utilitarian stuff I wouldn't really consider him ignored, Mackie for example cites him quite a bit in the cement of the universe. But I think there is a widespread belief that Mill's view on empiricism is quite bad/implausible, for example he reduced truth about arithmetic as being inductions from experience.

[Anonymous No.15559706]

>>15559633
I don't know what moral system do you subscribe to, but you don't need to be an "oversensitive, castrated, Protestant imbecile" to not approve of sexual harassment, pretty much everyone who isnt a nietzschean amoralist larper agrees that you shouldn't grope anyone without their consent.

[Anonymous No.15559716]

>>15559633
I don't think Searle is some evil rapist but I lose respect for a dude who is ostensibly a philosopher but watches porn at work like some nigger working construction. Coomers with wrinkles are pathetic.

[Anonymous No.15559719]

>>15559672
I meant to say *some of Mill's view on empiricism*

[Anonymous No.15559738]

>>15559716
Nothing wrong with watching porn or being a nigger, these are old fogey views

[Anonymous No.15559749]

>>15559738
horny geezers are grimey and pathetic

[Anonymous No.15559757]

>>15559749
>pathetic
Only because they are geezer, not horny

[Anonymous No.15559761]

The greatest philospher of the 21st century

[Anonymous No.15559771]

>>15559757
bit of column A, bit of column B. virility is based but imagining these dudes trying to get their raisin cocks off at 60+ is just hilarious and pathetic, die with grace lmao

[Anonymous No.15559778]

>>15559706
I agree with you. He didn't do a good thing.

But that doesn't justify his punishment.

Academics do worse things everyday. Supporting communism is much, much worse than sexually harassing someone, but no academics get stripped of their rightful titles because of it.

[Anonymous No.15559783]

george carlin :)

[Anonymous No.15559785]

>>15557987
yep

[Anonymous No.15559825]

>>15559771
So do you think you shouldn't have sex after you hit fifty? What's the fun in that.

[Anonymous No.15559833]

>>15559825
people have their own lives and bodies to contend with. they'd look at my life and have strong opinions of their own, I'm sure. I'm just posting mine: old dudes thirsting for young pussy is pathetic to me, and if you need sex to "have fun" death will is going to be a cold fucking horror, kid

[Anonymous No.15559844]

>>15559833
>old dudes thirsting for young pussy is pathetic to me
because you have mental problems like leftism, simpism, no testosterone etc.

[Anonymous No.15559847]

>>15559778
What social repercussions do you think sexual harassment should have? If it's too weak it wouldn't have any preventing power. He basically lost his job didn't he.

[Anonymous No.15559860]

>>15559844
>mastering your primal urges is leftist
go coom already

[Anonymous No.15559862]

>>15559833
I will take notice big boy

[Anonymous No.15559869]

>>15559860
>mastering your primal urges is leftist
maybe not but it is cope

[Anonymous No.15559881]

I know he doesn't deserve it. I know he has no original contributions outside of politics and advice. I know he isn't even a philosopher.

He's still going to go down as one of the greats as his popularity creates a myth.

[Anonymous No.15559884]

>>15559869
you sound like the coper here, lad

[Anonymous No.15559925]

>>15559884
Nuh uh

[Anonymous No.15559933]

>>15559881
He is already forgotten.

[Anonymous No.15559959]

>>15554733
You mean after

[Anonymous No.15559974]

Nick Land unironically

[Anonymous No.15559983]

>>15553455
my n word Gnome

[Anonymous No.15559990]

>>15559519
>I'm trained as an analytic
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.15560004]

No wh*teoids, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.15560007]

>>15559881
forgot about this guy

[Anonymous No.15560061]

everyone defending Searle in here: besides being a rapist (let's let that slide,) he's also a landlord. even you degenerate mongoloids wouldn't defend a landlord, would you?

also also, he's a fucking simpleton and he's wrong about most things.

[Anonymous No.15560153]

The public intellectual is dead and only a temporary spectacle for a capitalizing culture. Men of the 20th century will not be as remembered as much as men from the 19th century, which honestly is to say very little.

[Anonymous No.15560163]

>>15560153
21st, 20th

[Anonymous No.15560198]

>>15560061
Pay up.

[Anonymous No.15560209]

>>15560061
what's wrong with being a landlord today? you're either making money off of shitskins or people who are too retarded to realize that renting is a mistake

[Anonymous No.15560230]

>>15559519
what's the point of knowing so many different philosophies?

[Anonymous No.15560256]

>>15555079
In 20 years when Jesus's comes down and judges the non-believers is completely normal all these atheist guys will be thought of the same as the vitalists.

[Anonymous No.15560658]

>>15560230
It makes you better to know more and more, anon.

[Anonymous No.15560676]

Goonan is the one and only.

[Anonymous No.15560733]

>>15554898
>Chomsky
Kek

[Anonymous No.15560913]

>>15560230
As long as you are free and financially independent it's for enjoyment. If you are not, theres no point.

[Anonymous No.15561019]

>>15560061
4chan is not plebbit.

You're gonna have to pay.

[Anonymous No.15561036]

>>15560230
so you don't have to ask questions like this

[Anonymous No.15561220]

>>15559785
Honestly, I read like a handful of tweets and just had to accept it as irrefutably true, but also an unswallowable pill, would rather try and fail to live by a value system or something.

[Anonymous No.15561267]

>>15554898
>>15560733
Chomsky is an intellectual giant beyond the likes of everyone else given here collectively. If the totality of his work is allowed to count as 'philosophy', then there is no question that he trumps every other individual in his significance and the unique value of his contributions.

[Anonymous No.15561290]

based [not an arab] Taleb is on top of the list

[Anonymous No.15561395]

Habermas, Dugin for his status as the philosopher of Russia. That one Chinese Schmittian that advises Xi.

lmao at anyone who thinks analytic philosophy will be relevant in 50 years

[Anonymous No.15561401]

>>15559881
who?

[Anonymous No.15561457]

>>15561401
Jiang Shigong

[Anonymous No.15561664]

>>15554942
you are right, citations are a shitty metric

[Anonymous No.15561672]

>>15555135
no he is way too unpopular

[Anonymous No.15561717]

>>15559633
>Can't see anything wrong in any of that, sorry.
lmao nice bait

[Anonymous No.15561732]

>>15559990
based

[Anonymous No.15561748]

>>15559716
>like some nigger working construction
>niggers working
anon...

[Anonymous No.15561808]

>>15561267
Nah, Chomsky's the most aggressively middlebrow intellectual of all time. Borderline retarded, in fact.

[Anonymous No.15561815]

>>15561808
no anon is right. he is literally the most cited man alive

[Anonymous No.15561825]

>>15561815
People cite Chomsky because they want to avoid fucking Zizek and Peterson. That's the only option they have sadly.

[Anonymous No.15561832]

>>15561808
>>15561825

[Anonymous No.15562118]

>>15559273
>>15559519
>>15559672
Are you philosophy students? I'm not used to these kinds of posts on 4chan and you got me wondering whether browsing /lit/ and self-teaching is really an adequate replacement for university.

[Anonymous No.15562633]

>>15555285
James Ross, immaterial aspects of thought. https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43151/ross-immateriality.pdf

[Anonymous No.15562759]

>>15562118
>Is browsing /lit/ a replacement for university
No, that's not how it works...

>Is self-teaching a replacement for university
Yes, if you have a strong work ethic

[Anonymous No.15562775]

>>15562118
Not him, but I study philosophy, my recommendation would be to get some historical context, read the texts, accompany them with explanations or “introduction to ...” books, and complement the knowledge with a podcast or a youtube lecture. Most courses usually start out with Descartes’ Meditations and Hume’s Enquiry, then follow with the greek, medieval, modern, etc.
You may not have the advantage of engaging in dialogue with an expert, but after all you have the internet to your advantage, so you have access to tons of resources and forums on the topic. Also, /lit/ is for shitposting, if you want an overview on some authors just use the Stanford Enciclopedia.
Good luck!