[ 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: 21 KB, 320x386, aristotle2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830309 No.1830309 [Reply] [Original]

Who is your favourite philosopher, /lit/?
(Say the right thing)

>> No.1830315

Definitely not any ancient Greek hacks.

>> No.1830319

Rorty

:)

>> No.1830320

J.S. Mill

>> No.1830324

I am.

>> No.1830325
File: 9 KB, 278x309, 175.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830325

>>1830320
>>1830315
>>1830319

>> No.1830327

Ayn Rand

Objectivism is my religion

>> No.1830328

Sartre

>> No.1830332

Machiavelli, Ayn Rand, John Locke

>> No.1830334

Immanuel Kant

>> No.1830336

>>1830327
... hope this is a troll.

>>1830309
Xeonphon's interpretation of Plato's Republic works for me.

>> No.1830342

Ancient skeptics
Berkeley
Peirce

All you need in life.

>> No.1830359

Anyone not saying Aristotle is just pissing in his own eye

>> No.1830367

Forrest Gump

>> No.1830378

kierkegaard

>> No.1830388
File: 30 KB, 386x578, roseanne-pic_386x578.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830388

Roseannearchy: Tales from the Nut Farm

>> No.1830400

To all those who said Kierkegaard, what do you like about either/or? I have had a copy for a couple of months now and I have read a couple of the chapters of A but I really dont get it. Especially when he starts talking about opera and stuff. Seriously, how do you read this? Do you skip some chapters or what?

>> No.1830405

Epicurus

>> No.1830432

Hume, Locke..

>> No.1830440

Marcus Aurelius

>> No.1830444

>>1830440
Marcus was a bro.

None of these other philosophers came close.

>> No.1830447

Siddhartha Gautama.

>> No.1830460

William Shakespeare

>> No.1830462

>>1830400
This is probably going to seem like the most pretentious answer but believe me when I say it's true.

Kierkegaard is most likely 2deep4u.

>> No.1830463
File: 7 KB, 258x196, lookingforanhonestman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830463

>> No.1830467

Kierkegaard
Machiavelli
Sartre

Best ever.

>> No.1830477

Stephanie Meyer

>> No.1830485

>>1830460
everything he stated was fact, not opinion, therefore he isn't a philosopher

>> No.1830488

Wittgenstein

>> No.1830490

Aristotle and Nietzsche. For they represent to me two independent views of the world: How the world is and how should I live, in that order.

>> No.1830491

/lit/ gets ridiculous when tries to talk about philosophy.

>> No.1830493

>>1830485
wut

>> No.1830494

Glenn Beck

>> No.1830511

Sarah Palin

>> No.1830515

Chuck Palahniuk

>> No.1830523

Tao Lin

>> No.1830534

>>1830493
Question?

>> No.1830545

>>1830400

Ideas seem to be accessible to everybody, but philosophy is at times esoteric like any other discipline. Meaning that you start with the easy stuff and progress to the harder stuff.

Kierkegaard (as well as Nietzsche) are responding to past philosophers in most of their works, so they assume a level of competency from the reader.

Although you can bypass reading other people by getting a version of Either/ Or with a shit ton of footnotes. Oh, and read the introduction. In fact, go to the library and read the introduction to different translations of Either/ Or.

Learn about Regina and all that drama.

>>1830491
>implying philosophy isn't ridiculous.

>> No.1830550

Anyone not saying Aristotle is just pissing in his own eye

>> No.1830568

>>1830550
Aristotle was a sniveling bitch. Diogenes is OG Triple OG philosophuckingangsta.

>> No.1830577
File: 20 KB, 432x432, template-philosoraptor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830577

>> No.1830578
File: 37 KB, 399x397, 103455696841.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830578

>> No.1830581
File: 7 KB, 145x200, 9781405333351.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830581

>> No.1830583

Derrida!

>> No.1830590

>>1830488
This. Also Max Stirner, Antonin Artaud and some parts of Schopenhauer and Marx.

>> No.1830668

Socrates and Wittgenstein are God tier.

>> No.1830676

I've always had a respect for Wittgenstein.

>> No.1830682

Lao Tzu

>> No.1830691
File: 17 KB, 480x328, wittgenstein_duck_rabbit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830691

>>1830676
If you're going to read Wittgenstein, you should read the Tractatus. After you have read it you may want to read some interpretations, as the last "Chapter" so to speak (there aren't actually chapters) gets a little deep with the logical symbolism. Well worth reading, especially as it's a short book (although dense) it shouldn't take you too long to get through it. I think you'll enjoy it.

>> No.1830713

>>1830682
I wiki'd Lao Tzu, father of Daoism and couldn't find any of his books, can you recommend any of his original writings?

>> No.1830763

David Hume because he destroyed everything

>> No.1830773

>>1830763
What's his best work? I'm thinking about checking him out.

>> No.1830784

>>1830773
A Treatise of Human Nature. Im sure some would disagree with me

>> No.1830792

>>1830763
How is he anymore important than Locke?

>> No.1830796

>>1830460
Shakespeare was an actor, not a philosopher bro. His work doesn't hold opinions about the nature of things, despite what the Romantic litcrit says, they're wanking up the wrong tree.

Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Parmenides for where philosophy started.
imo, Nietzsche was the last progress made. So, him for where philosophy is currently tethered.

Suggestions against this encouraged, if you have read something you feel is better, do tell

>> No.1830800
File: 7 KB, 259x194, chuchu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830800

>>1830792
>Locke
>materialworldlol
>mfw

Hume is better

he's really cute too, in a teddy bear kind of way

>> No.1830900
File: 11 KB, 248x247, 1305673224371.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1830900

Wittgenstein

>> No.1830909

I like Kierkegaard, personally.

>>1830796
Eh, I might give Philip K. Dick a little bit of room. Science Fiction was the least of his concerns.

>> No.1830914

Wittgenstein and Heidegger

It used to be only Wittgenstein, but my world was blown open by approaching Heidegger after having first read Husserl.

>> No.1831076

Machiavelli all the way...

>> No.1831142
File: 4 KB, 122x160, Hegel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1831142

Hegel

>> No.1831165
File: 16 KB, 380x452, f_retrato_kierkegaard3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1831165

Soren Kierkegaard
John Rawls

>> No.1831382

Alan Watts

>> No.1832751
File: 21 KB, 330x400, hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1832751

Hume probably

>> No.1832770

spinoza and schopenhauer

>> No.1832784

>>1830400
>Do you skip some chapters or what?
Read only 'the Diary of a Seducer'.

>> No.1832786
File: 10 KB, 220x240, 220px-Nietzsche187a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1832786

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

>> No.1832791

Spinoza, Locke

>> No.1832792

>>1832770
oh and godfré ray king

life changing stuff

>> No.1832798

>>1830796

Philosophy is still 'tethered' at the end of the 19th century? I assume this isn't serious. To take this seriously, you have to ignore, among others, Wittgenstein, Russell, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, the entire Frankfurt School, the linguistic turn, etc. etc.

Just shut the fuck up. Also, Shakespeare was a philosopher of sorts since he analysed the human condition (ethics) and the nature of being (ontology) throughout his entire work. There is a book called 'Shakespeare's Philosophy' by Colin McGinn which you really ought to check out. Contemporary literary criticism has uncovered many of the links between, for example, Montaigne and Shakespeare.

>> No.1832810

Jeremy Bentham

>> No.1832833

>>1832798
>To take this seriously, you have to ignore, among others, Wittgenstein, Russell, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, the entire Frankfurt School, the linguistic turn, etc

Nietzsche heralded the linguistic turn. I think it's a fair point to say the questions he raised are still the ones people are asking.

Sarte, Camus, and the Frankfurt school made no significant new contributions to philosophy.

>> No.1832839

Reading Heidegger's Sein Und Ziet

so-many-goddamn-hyphens-everywhere-so-annoying-yet-oddly-compelling

>>1832833
inb4 Analytic vs. Continental shitstorm.

>> No.1832840

Agree with you on Aristotle OP. If Aristotle could create a man like Alexander the Great, he is superior to any other philosophy because he actuality caused the future to change when Alexnader executed his ideas.

Philosophy that remains in theory and has not caused change in the world should just be forgotten. That is expired shit, time to throw it out.

>> No.1832875

>>1832840

Alexander did not 'execute Aristotle's ideas'. In which of Aristotle's writings do you find him writing about military strategy, the necessity of imperial expansion, the particular ways in which to subjugate conquered territories, etc.? The fact that Aristotle was his tutor tells us about as much as the fact that Seneca was Nero's tutor. Was Nero somehow inspired by Seneca?

>>1832833

Nietzsche did not 'herald the linguistic turn'. What does that even mean? The fact that there are some philosophers -- Derrida, Foucault -- who were both influenced by Nietzsche and central to the linguistic turn does not mean that one can trace from Nietzsche a direct line to it. The questions Nietzsche was asking were fairly standard questions in philosophical though, and the extent to which Nietzsche was responding to Enlightenment/positivist values is quite clear: What can we know? What is the nature of reality? What is the correct way to live? Even the most famous of Nietzsche's ideas, 'the death of God', had already been written about by others, including Dostoevsky only a decade earlier. Nobody can read Dostoevsky in 'The Brothers Karamazov' and still believe that Nietzsche raised the question about the correct way to live in the absence of God.

Even if it were true that Nietzsche was an important, or even the primary, influence on the linguistic turn, how would that make the 20th century philosophers unimportant? Can you point to a work of Nietzsche where he covers the same topics in any sort of detail? I wouldn't have thought so.

I'm just going to assume you haven't read any of the Frankfurt School philosophers, Habermas in particular, and I'll take your strange silence on Wittgenstein and Heidegger as evidence that you understand that what you said was profoundly stupid.

>> No.1832892

>>1832798
Original commenter here.

Admittedly I do not know enough about these following philosophers to make a neat summary of their work.
I have been meaning to read Heidegger and Wittgenstein, Russell etc for my study towards logic's limitations and usefulness. We'll see how it goes.

Nevertheless, I see Nietzsche's philosophy being the one that actually goes somewhere. These others are too often looking backwards in the same way Socratic reason might. It happens that I agree with Nietzsche that this eternally recurrent back reasoning is NOT the essence of a worthwhile truth to a worthwhile end.

As for the poor shot on Shakespeare as philosopher, (I did expect something like this objection) when you read his work you realise he was NOT a philospher. His work was based on presentation of different worlds, or different mental 'states'. These worlds invite philosophical speculation, but if you read him alongside Marlowe for example, it becomes clear that Shakespeare is full of imagination, but not incisive in the way that Marlowe, and in my opinion good philosophers are.

I hope this is an insight into what my taste is, and why.

>> No.1832931

>>1831165
odd

>> No.1832932

this claiming the past for the mighty dead thing, is a hobby for the bored and talentless.

>> No.1832935

if you don't think you can make a fundamental contribution then don't go into philosophy. go live your life, as wittgenstein would have told you.

>> No.1832940

>>1832931
>>1832932
>>1832935
>look at me
>look at me
>look at me

>> No.1832945

>>1832940
i make my marks with the world, not with the passersby

>> No.1832950
File: 47 KB, 451x360, oshoumad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1832950

>> No.1832963

>>1832950
osho isn't a philosopher, osho is pure awareness.

>> No.1832977
File: 99 KB, 1200x1448, Derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1832977

Derrida!
and all the others poststructuralists!
Very simple for me...

>> No.1832996

foucault, barthes, derrida

gorgias

>> No.1833015

I always find interesting stuff in philosophers/thinkers I read. Nietzsche, Deleuze, Spinoza, Barthes, Schopenhauer...

>> No.1833022

>>1833015
This is pretty much why I never take any "Favorite" question seriously. I can't speak for other people, but I've never read a philosopher who perfectly expressed exactly how I think or feel about anything, I agree or disagree with different points, or I don't even get to a point of agree or disagree and simply have separate questions on what they've stated rather than different conclusions.

>> No.1833023

>>1833015
forgot Heidegger

>> No.1833030

Ravachol or Peregrinus Proteus..also Bataille is kind of an informal philosopher/art historian..formal philosophy is pretty shit.

>> No.1834284
File: 116 KB, 400x400, 1289131294272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1834284

St Thomas Aquinas is pretty badass, but philosoraptor is a cool guy too.

>> No.1834309

Socrate

>> No.1834311

>>1834284
why the fuck do you like aquinas

>> No.1834318

>>1834311
>why the fuck do you like aquinas
why the fuck do you not like aquinas??

>> No.1834322

>>1834311

Iguanas are cool, homes. Don't dis the fucking lizards, you whore's cunt.

>> No.1834330

Karl Popper

>everyone just went lolwut

>> No.1834331

gottlob frege, even though he hated the jews

>> No.1834336

>>1832950
Don't move the way fear makes you move.
Move the way love makes you move.
Move the way joy makes you move.

Osho

>> No.1834345

Epictetus for ancient
Spinoza for modern
Husserl for continental
David Lewis for analytic

>> No.1834348

>>1834330
I like karl popper ehs a pretty cool guy tries to reconcile classical skepticism with contemporary philosophy of science but makes a terrible concession undermining the entire basis and doesn't afraid of anything

>> No.1834360

>>1834318
my question is more relevant. are you honestly telling me that nostaglaing for this mystic is okay in this day and age

>> No.1834377

>>1834360

>aquinas
>mystic

wtfamireading.jpeg

>> No.1834391
File: 20 KB, 400x400, worlds_best_philosopher_left_hand_large_mug-p1689821953026068222om5g_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1834391

Diogenes for Ancient Philosophy

"He has the most who is most content with the least." -D

Nietzsche/Kierkegaard for Modern Philosophy

"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent." -N / “only the truth that edifies is truth for you” -K

Friedrich Schiller for Continental Philosophy

"It was culture itself that inflicted this wound onto modern humanity." -S

Wittgenstein for Analytic Philosophy

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -W

>> No.1834401

>>1834360
Aquanias thought alot and said alot mostly bullshit about the human soul and its appetites. I don't nostalgia over him, but his works are truly an impressive philosophical undertaking worth of looking at them with a context informed eye and taking the time to study. There is some value there. Therefore, a possible favorite in my book.

>> No.1834416

>>1834377
revelation hurr etc

any prescientific, metaphysics centered philosopher isn't worth that much, even if right on some things. the method and the way these observations are presented in a metaphysical construction is deeply distasteful to me.

>> No.1834435

>>1834401
fine. i think the time for trying to reconcile a hard assumption and undeniable, albeit uncomfortable thoughts is over though. this kind of gymnastic maybe impressive, it is not good philosophy, because it's not true

>> No.1834436

>>1834416

which prescientific philosophers do you admire, if any?

>> No.1834447

>>1834436
lao zi, jesus, aristotle is pretty good as well

>> No.1834448

>>1834435
>it's not true
You blandly deny subjective content and all other aspects of rhetoric beyond logic. By your standards, no philosophy is good philosophy. You should really learn a bit about philosophy, or rather you should learn quite a lot about life before attempting to know philosophy, because philosophy without life, without vitality, is a dead thing, an impotent thing. Really, read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and also have a love affair. I think that would teach you a lot.

>> No.1834451

>>1834447
>implying you know a thing about jesus
I'm really tempted to reprint that speech from Franny and Zooey about how making Jesus who you want him to be is childish. But I won't.

>> No.1834454

>>1834448
>>1834451

why so presumptuous and hostile?

>> No.1834456

>>1834454
Being presumptuous in kind, and the hostility is from having read quite a few of her posts in my day. Don't level presumptuousness at me just yet.

>> No.1834457

>>1834454
"Its on the internet beavis hHRRR HRRR
it has to be presumptuous and hostile HHHRRR RHRRRR"

>> No.1834460

The euthyphro arguments by Plato are excellent.

Nietzsche was an excellent philosopher.

It is too hard to point out one philosopher, but if I had to I might lean to Thomas More.

Utopia is an excellent read.

I'd also read meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

>> No.1834475

>>1834451
>implying i care whether any such real person existed.

>> No.1834479

>>1834448
>deny subjective content
no.

rest of your post is silly based on this first misstep

>> No.1834484

plato.
honestly, thats it. rest is just a footnote. or gibberish.

>> No.1834485

sentimentality is either madness or creativity. do you know the line, mr. 'rhetoric'

>> No.1834488

>>1834475
It's not about who the real person was, but it is about the real in the myth, and you cannot possibly be talking about Jesus seriously. What do you know of the bible? Do you even attempt to follow what Jesus has to say, or do you prefer the reified christ of academia? Either way, I know all of this from your previous posts. Nothing about what you say suggests you would know the first thing about it.
>>1834479
Silly. Nice evasion of some truth there. You say something is bad philosophy because ''it is not true'' and then say you don't deny subjective content. You either do not know truth, or do not know what subjectivity really is. Either way, the bit about your philosophy being bloodless came from sincerity. Go and live some.

>> No.1834493 [DELETED] 

>>1834488
weak, much too weak. can't you live like a human without relying on illusions.

>> No.1834509

>>1834488
>I know all of this from your previous posts. Nothing about what you say suggests you would know the first thing about it.

it must come as a shock to you that i am not who you think i am. hahahhaha

you tell me. i can naturalize jesus and preserve him, can you. (yes, this includes all notions of divine as well)

>> No.1834514

Yogi Berra. C'mon.

Also Philippa Foot and Bill Puka.

>> No.1834517

>Either way, the bit about your philosophy being bloodless came from sincerity.

absurd, as i will tell you, in living you do not need philosophy. i will call every kind of subjective content you've just honored LIFE and not philosophy.

>> No.1834520

Pseudo-Dionysius

Teilhard de Chardin

>> No.1834522

>>1834509
You cannot naturalize him and preserve him..all you're doing is turning him into another commodity. Even you're willful phrasing of that ''intervention'' reveals a relationship with the jesus that is based in ignorance or arrogance. Maybe you're not who I think you are, but your trip has been associated with some goddamn overbearing posts, and it really bothered me tonight for some reason

>> No.1834524

>>1834522
so making him to be a man, as he is, is commodifying. seems like you do not love people as much as you think

>> No.1834525

>>1834517
>in living you do not need philosophy
I just entirely disagree with that. Living is what creates a need for philosophy. Once again, I don't think you've lived much.

>> No.1834535

>>1834525
okay, then change that to, in living you do not need a philosophy that can be said.

>> No.1834536

>>1834524
You cannot make him a man, because he is long gone (whether he was even a man or not, and I mean a living, breathing man)..so that tactic is misguided. You have to grapple with the book, and you cannot pick and choose what the book says, but you can certainly take it to heart..put it this way..how does jesus fit in with your concept of philosophy? I'm genuinely curious to know.

>> No.1834541

>>1834535
Supposing that such a tight synchronization between philosophy and ''living'' could happen, it doesn't. There are churches, political parties, american idol contests, etc. etc. You have to consider why there is this prevalence of enunciated philosophy and why it is so widely used.

>> No.1834546
File: 88 KB, 661x716, 1302494411657.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1834546

Is this a trick question?
I mean there's only one choice after all.
DEEP & EDGY!
Pic is relevant

>> No.1834548

Plato

>> No.1834593

>>1834546
But all your blessed D&E posted was Osho asking us if 'we mad?' That cant be a philosophy!?! I've not found the philosophical discourse I wanted on /lit/. Where do I go to get this? Surely not 420Chan?

>> No.1834598

>>1834593
Keep it between you and yourself.
"discourse" is just seeking approval. Which an interest in philosophy will never get you. Read some of that Marcus Aurelius, son.

>> No.1834603

>>1834598
The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it. -MA
Variant: The universe is flux, life is opinion.
Variant: The universe is transformation: life is opinion. (George Long)
ὁ κόσμος ἀλλοίωσις, ὁ βίος ὑπόληψις.

>> No.1834606

>>1834593
>Surely not 420Chan?
420chan used to have a... well...I don't remember how good it was, but they used to have a philosophy board. Now it's contaminated with social science bullshit.

>> No.1834610

>>1834541
the self reference problem in my statement should be a hint to what i mean. it is a resistance against being ruled by the very rules you created.

>> No.1834612

>>1834606
I take it your not into philo of the Soc. Sciences D&E? Do you have a direct link or name of the board?? I wish to give them a try.

>> No.1834624

>>1834612
I like maybe baudrillard, bataille and althusser but i wouldn't have a lot of time for it. the board is called 'social sciences' under the academic tab on the main page. can't miss it. Be aware, very slow posting on 420chan as far as I remember.

>> No.1834631

>>1834610
Fine define your own rules, but when it comes to Jesus, you're just name dropping, I feel. His name does have power and lest I ramble on about the occult implications of name-dropping, I'll cut it short by saying if you think of jesus as a philosopher, you have gotten nothing from his philosophy.

>> No.1834635

>>1834624
Thanks! I appreciate the help. Nice to see you werent uptight about it. Yea the only one that really gets my attention is althusser and his writings on materialism. 420chans posting is so slow its almost inoperable for a sane mind. I might just stay on /lit/. Do you know of any other philosophy boards D&E? Thanks for all the help.

>> No.1834642

>>1834631
he thought about stuff, but to make him a philosopher here is to study how he came to those conclusions, not to repeat him in replication. ancient guys are studied in different ways, and most of teh time, people say ask what you can learn from them. but then again, sometimes people worship these guys and that, i cannot stand.

>> No.1834644

>>1834624
Hey.

Hey, D&E

Literature is subjective

>> No.1834657
File: 596 KB, 600x2264, creepystalker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1834657

>>1834635
>Do you know of any other philosophy boards D&E?
There's a board on 99chan. It's probably just as slow, and I haven't seen the quality of the content in ages.

>> No.1834674

>>1832875
You're rude, mate. And clearly have a chip on your shoulder about something. I did not say that C20th century philosophy was UNIMPORTANT, I agreed with an earlier poster that it hadn't moved beyond problems that Nietzsche raised or saw first.

Anyhow. Deep breath

>Nietzsche did not 'herald the linguistic turn'. What does that even mean?

It means that you that he was the first philosopher since Plato to begin to seriously question the medium in which philosophy takes place. This is the linguistic turn. You haven't read Nietzsche closely, have you?

Nietzsche continually mentions "reading well" he obsesses about words and language. He realises they are not transparent, that they construct truth.

>I'll take your strange silence on Wittgenstein and Heidegger as evidence that you understand that what you said was profoundly stupid.

No, I just thought they've made significant contributions, unlike Sartre, Camus or the Frankfurt school.

It's profoundly stupid, by the way, to leap off the deep end over a remark you don't actually seem to disagree with on the basis of a precious feeling you seem to have for, of all people, Jurgen Habermas.

>> No.1834687 [DELETED] 
File: 18 KB, 224x299, 1292914558266.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1834687

>>1834674

>Thinks the Frankfurters set out to contribute. I'll just leave you with your ignorance.

>> No.1834688

>>1834674

>Thinks the Frankfurters set out to contribute.

I'll just leave you with your ignorance.

>> No.1834697

>>1834688
No, I said they did not make a significant contribution to philosophy. They are interesting, failed syncretists. Feel free to shine a light on my ignorance, though.

>> No.1834798
File: 25 KB, 300x314, evola-knew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1834798

Julius Evola

>> No.1834829

Anyone know where to get busts of philosophers? Been looking forever.

>> No.1835000

>>1834546
thanks for this , "lost"

>> No.1835052
File: 83 KB, 350x551, enquiry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1835052

Hume, the man who singehandedly destroyed metaphysics.

>> No.1835073

Nietzsche was not a philosopher. He was a pseudo-philosopher and pseudo-intellectual. There is almost zero argument in his books. They are collections of bare assertions by a weak, pathetic, sickly man desperately grasping at some sense of power.

>> No.1835076

>>1835073
Sounds like Deep&Edgy

>> No.1835077
File: 150 KB, 400x400, philraptor1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1835077

HERM HERM

>> No.1835092

>>1835073
>I am getting trolled, so what?

He was much better than other who had pseudo-arguments. And he was talking about morality.

>> No.1835105

>>1835092

He wasn't meaningfully talking about anything. He was babbling.
The alternative to pseudo-arguments is not better pseudo-arguments.

>> No.1835121

>>1835105
He was talking about morality. Which can't be substantiated but only expounded. I like his way of thinking because it leads to a healthy, joyful life. What could possibly be wrong with that?

>> No.1835135

>>1835121
>I like his way of thinking because it leads to a healthy, joyful life.

Jamesbond saying something not really stupid oh wow

that tripfag impersonator guy is pretty good but he can't get past me

>> No.1835138

>>1835135
>can't get past me

Tsk, I should have made a pic of where I posted as sunhawk and you fell for it and posted, "FFFFFFFFFFFFF" Maybe I can still find it.

>> No.1835139

>>1835121

As I said, pseudo-philosophy. Thank you for proving my point.

>I like his way of thinking because it leads to a healthy, joyful life.

He has the philosophical content of Oprah, then.

>> No.1835140

>>1835135
>Jamesbond saying something not really stupid oh wow

Nothing like a jolt back to reality, eh?

>> No.1835142

>>1835138
For now this'll do

People who have the add-on to auto redirect to green oval
>1825240
>1825245
>1825258
>1825275

For those who don't.
Go backwards from this:
http://www.green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/lit/thread/1824910#p1825275

I'll make a pic sooner or later.

>> No.1835145

>>1835139

Yeah, I'm sure some jackass like you on the internet can dismiss the whole oeuvre of a philosopher by saying he's a pseudo-intellectual.

>> No.1835152

>>1835145

Yes. Yes, I can. And I did.

I'm sure a syphilitic weakling desperately grasping at power could totally shake the foundations of human thought, too.
... shame he didn't.

>> No.1835206

I have several favorite philosophers:

Ancient:

Aristotle, as I have been heavily influenced by neo/Aristotelianism in ethics;

Chuang-tzu, as an expositionist of the playfulness and groundedness in reality of philosophical Taoism;

Modern:

Wittgenstein, as he more or less made me realize that not all philosophical problems are quite as necessary as they may lead one to believe (I particularly love On Certainty). The Investigations, however, has everything you really need from him.

Kierkegaard, who always ever only has one subject: the single individual... Before I had read Fear and Trembling I did not know the full scope of what I had been missing from discussions about having faith or being an authentic person. In addition to being a very good philosopher, he could actually write as well, and not just throw big words out like many philosophers do.

Oddly these author's subjects don't really overlap that much, so I have more or less cobbled together my own personal philosophy from them.

>> No.1835237

Marcus Aurelius is my favourite.

Honorable mentions to Epictetus and Epicurus.

I like my philosophy to focus on ethics, rather than metaphysics. Plato used his whole theory of the Ideas to fundament all he said, and once you refute that, it all falls down.
The stoics, having some cynic influence, admit there's a chance it all may be chaos and we can't really know, but still we have an inner drive to follow a certain set of ethics. Can't remember if it was Cleander (I do know it was one of the first leaders of the Stoa) who said all that wasn't ethics was pointless to try and figure out in terms of philosophy. Even Socrates says so if you read Xenophon's socratic writings. (Xenophon was a lot more objective on his dialogues, since he wasn't trying to push his own ideas on them like Plato).

>> No.1835321

Kant, Hegel, Heidegger

>> No.1835329

>>1835152

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

he wasn't syphilitic

and as for 'sickly weak etc.' I'd like to see YOU write something of a similar power and standing to his oeuvre while suffering as much as he did. He managed to turn his suffering into the most resounding affirmation of life, while you sit there babbling about lacking 'argument' as though philosophy = dry 'analytic' formulas with no actual bearing on fucking anything regarding problems it's difficult to even take an interest in to begin with

>> No.1835331

>>1835152

plus there's the fact that he, um, ACTUALLY DID SHAKE THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN THOUGHT

he's by far the most influential philosopher of recent times and the one who most profoundly articulated the vast paradigm shifts which moderntiy entails and which we are still working through today, regardless of your actual opinion of his work

>> No.1835348

SPI-MOTHERFUCKING-NOZA

>> No.1835363
File: 43 KB, 400x490, 2352658595.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1835363

mfw people with "favorite philosophers" and "my philosophy" don´t have a clue about what philosophy is.

>> No.1835381

>>1835363
mfw i thought that was a gorilla scrunching his face up

>> No.1835541
File: 19 KB, 336x412, 4-13 cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1835541

>ctrl F
>no Heidegger, Kant, Hegel

>mgw

>> No.1835547

Schopenhauer

Nietzsche

>> No.1835551
File: 35 KB, 426x426, elrond.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1835551

>>1835541
> ctrl f
> multiple instances of each

>> No.1835564

>>1835541
to think anyone would buy that rag with that picture on it. yuck

>> No.1835567

>>1835541

Are you being serious?

>> No.1835591

+1 for Hegel.

>> No.1835593

>>1830568

Truth.

Diogenes was a motherfucking boss.

>> No.1835594

Max Stirner

>> No.1835596

>>1834546
i always find these hilarious

does anyone have more?

>> No.1835602

Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, Montaigne, Mozi

of course I can't pick just one.

>> No.1835604

Plato
Because you don't need to be a specialist to appreciate him.
Always something fresh on re-reading.
The way in which the reader is almost encouraged to disagree. I'm always thinking "yes, but..."

>> No.1835618
File: 42 KB, 479x640, 1290125825474.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1835618

>> No.1835624

>>1835604
that's mostly because plato is a retard

>> No.1835629

>>1835624
Retard's going a little too far. Definitely was an asshole, though. "The greater part of stories we shall have to reject..." Total dickhead.

>> No.1835642

Epicureanism

>> No.1835661

Why is /lit/ called /lit/ instead of /phil/ ??????????

>> No.1835676

>>1835629
no i stand by my comment.

>> No.1835700

>>1835661

not all literature is philosophy but all philosophy is literature

>> No.1835706

>>1835700
not really dear.

>> No.1835733

>>1835700

since deconstruction and poststructuralism there are no more genres!
there is no such thing lika a difference between literature and philosophy!

DERRIDA the one and only!

>> No.1835754
File: 90 KB, 627x600, phil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1835754

pic related

>> No.1835907

>>1835329
>>1835331

Continental babble.

>> No.1835993

>>1835733

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Literature is simply writing about something. While it probably wouldn't include postings on here, it certainly would include things from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to Diary of a Seducer. So please explain how the original statement was incorrect...

>>1835706
I'm all for acknowledging that there aren't "hard" lines between genres. I fully support efforts such as Cavell's Claim of Reason. But to say that because there are no hard lines there is no such thing as a genre makes it seem like you've never read Wittgenstein (cf around the Investigations S71, on family resemblances).

>> No.1836186
File: 43 KB, 634x406, Charlie Sheen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1836186

Charles of Sheen

>> No.1836275

Dubya

>> No.1836299

>People actually aren't saying diogenes

>> No.1836305
File: 7 KB, 256x192, Caligula3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1836305

>>1836299
>old ass greek turd
>relevant today

>> No.1836778

Heraclitus, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Lao Tzu & Lieh Tzu.

>> No.1836785

>>1835073
Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher if you accept the distinction the Athenians drew between philosophy and sophistry.

Sophistry has been unfairly and hypocritically denigrated by dogmatics for centuries. The times are a-changing and Nietzsche said as much. To dismiss him as "weak" seems like defensive myopia on your part. He was something of an invalid, but he was a shy and humble man, he didn't lust for power, he let thought (words) work their way through him as they saw fit. If knowledge is thought and a philosopher a lover of thought then Nietzsche is a philosopher of the first rank.

>> No.1836790

Plato and David Hume

>> No.1836798

Herodotus.

>> No.1836819

>>1836798
>Herodotus
>Philosopher
HA-HA-HA

Mine is Descartes and Foucault. Sometimes Kant and Nietzsche

>> No.1836828

>Laughs at someone for interpreting a "historian" as a philosopher
>Drops contradictory philosopher names in an attempt to sound deep
>thatsmy/lit/.jpg

>> No.1836847
File: 43 KB, 255x275, newman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1836847

>>1835564

Oh look a hipster who has never even stepped into a University classroom

>> No.1836994
File: 295 KB, 2560x1600, 1306606073621.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1836994

>>1834435

>> No.1837002

>>1836994
To say further, to reconcile the irreconcilableness only contributes towards highlighting the contrast.

That is bad, because even the irreconcilable carries with it some good that helps man (I am of course talking about Morality).

>> No.1837027

I like Kant just for the pronounciation of his name.

>> No.1837090

>>1834674

>It means that you that he was the first philosopher since Plato to begin to seriously question the medium in which philosophy takes place. This is the linguistic turn. You haven't read Nietzsche closely, have you?

That's not the linguistic turn. The linguistic turn refers primarily to a reformulation of philosophical problems which were traditionally seen as either epistemological, ontological or metaphysical and and which were turned into questions about language.

Nietzsche does something slightly similar in only one of his works, but the similarity similarities are superficial, as anyone who has read Nietzsche alongside some 20th century philosophers would know, which I assume you haven't if you believe that no progress has been made in the last century. Although he was a philologist, and thus concerned with etymologies and the original meanings of words, he does not substitute these things for a discussion of ontological or moral principles -- Nietzsche is primarily a moralist. The one exception to this in Nietzsche is in 'On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense' where he does write about the relationship between external reality and concepts, but he does not seek to dissolve the philosophical problems he's dealing with, which as Dummett points out, is the main concern of philosophers who are really associated with the linguistic turn (most notably Frege and Wittgenstein).

As for Habermas, I'm not a peculiarly avid admirer of his work, but he has given us a very good definition of the linguistic turn: "the human interest in autonomy and responsibility is not mere fancy, for it can be apprehended a priori. What raises us out of nature is the only thing whose nature we can know: language".

>> No.1837091

>>1837027

Yes, quite. I will borrow this from Christopher Hitchens's essay on the crackdown on low-level 'crime' in New York, which you can read here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2004/02/hitchens200402

"On another occasion, he put his pipe in his mouth as he was ascending the subway steps. A policeman approached and told him that there was no smoking on the subway. Morgenbesser explained—pointed out might be a better term—that he was leaving the subway, not entering it, and had not yet lit up. The cop repeated his injunction. Morgenbesser reiterated his observation. After a few such exchanges, the cop saw he was beaten and fell back on the oldest standby of enfeebled authority: “If I let you do it, I’d have to let everyone do it.” To this the old philosopher replied, “Who do you think you are—Kant?” His last word was misconstrued, and the whole question of the categorical imperative had to be hashed out down at the precinct house. Morgenbesser walked."

>> No.1837099

>>1837090

I will just add to this by pointing out that Nietzsche was by no means the first person to write about language, so he certainly wasn't "the first philosopher since Plato..." I will here put in a word for an American philosopher -- apparently they do exist -- whose work was extraordinarily like Wittgenstein's. I especially recommend that you read 'A Treatise on Language' and 'The Meaning of Words'.

>> No.1837104

>>1837099

...and whose name I didn't mention, but which is Alexander Bryan Johnson.

>> No.1837115

>>1837091
Sadly there are few people who will pronounce his name correctly, I guess out of fear of offending someone.
That was an interesting article however, I think most cities around the world are becoming more like that.

>> No.1837122

Thomas Aquinas

>> No.1837127

ITT: namedropping.

You should at least explain why.

>> No.1837133

>>1834345
>>1835237

hellz yeah gentlemen

epictetus like a mad cunt

>> No.1837235

>>1836819
>Descartes AND Foucault
Have you read History of Madness and his dialogue with Derrida?
>Nietzsche AND Kant
Have you read Genealogy of morals?

If so... Could you explain me why?
Because i don't get it.

>> No.1837301

>>1837235
Lol. I troll u fgt.

>> No.1837304

>>1837301
>Implying you're that tripfag.

>> No.1837307

>>1837304
Lol. I troll u agn.

>> No.1837308

Fav
Epicurus
Diogenes of Sinope
Marcus Aurelius

Least fav
Hegel and all the shit he spawned

>> No.1837485

>>1837090
> The linguistic turn refers primarily to a reformulation of philosophical problems which were traditionally seen as either epistemological, ontological or metaphysical and which were turned into questions about language.

Exactly. The problems you mention were THE problems of philosophy. Nietzsche approached these through the problematic of language. To paraphrase off the top of my head, “I fear we won’t be through with God until we are through with grammar.”

>Nietzsche does something slightly similar in only one of his works, but the similarity similarities are superficial, as anyone who has read Nietzsche alongside some 20th century philosophers would know, which I assume you haven't if you believe that no progress has been made in the last century. Although he was a philologist, and thus concerned with etymologies and the original meanings of words, he does not substitute these things for a discussion of ontological or moral principles -- Nietzsche is primarily a moralist. The one exception to this in Nietzsche is in 'On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense'

“On truth and lies…” was written at the beginning of his career. Do you think he discarded these important problems and concerned himself only with “morality” afterwards? Nietzsche is not a moralist, he is a meta-moralist. The similarity you talk about isn’t superficial, your reading of Nietzsche is superficial. To an extent in Daybreak, but definitely in Gay science and Beyond Good Evil and elsewhere in the later works, Nietzsche has an acute awareness of the importance of language, of words...

>> No.1837488

>>1837485
...He doesn’t nail a blatant title to what he is doing, or give a traditional philosophical argument, but if you read him CLOSELY –read WELL- then you’d appreciate that language is one of his primary concerns, maybe the primary concern. He writes as a writer, self-consciously, and his need to do so is the same need that prompted later thinkers to make the Linguistic Turn ™. The likes of Habermas (a plodder, frankly) may have reformulated this problematic in more explicit terms, more amenable to people who need things spelled out before they can appreciate, and this is worthwhile and useful, but I wouldn’t call it progress, more footnotes, valuable to an extent but not anything new. You mention Frege and that is fair enough. The argument we are having came about when someone said philosophy was tethered to the nineteenth century. This is a fair point, I believe. People have said the course of Western philosophy is footnotes to Plato. Plato was a dogmatic dialectician who had an irreducible faith in the capacity of language to simply show the truth. This was questioned in the C19th. Perhaps it is possible to see Frege as the dark counterpoint to Nietzsche, the Number shadowing the Word, his entangled anti-particle. Frege asked his questions in the nineteenth century too, though.

>> No.1837489

>>1837090
>Wittgenstein

Took his intellectual apprenticeship in Vienna shortly after the turn of the century. He read Nietzsche and moved in a German speaking milieu profoundly influenced by him. And then he brought these questions to the Anglo world which, for cultural, political and historical reasons, needed –and in some corners still needs- everything spelled out very clearly and obviously before they start to comprehend.

 I will just add to this by pointing out that Nietzsche was by no means the first person to write about language, so he certainly wasn't "the first philosopher since Plato..."

I didn’t say he was the first. I said he was the first to *seriously* raise the questions, to ask them well. I haven’t heard of Johnson. He sounds intriguing and I’ll look into him. To guess, his obscurity is a result of an inability to question well, but I hope to be proved wrong on that guess.

>> No.1837492

>>1837485
>>1837488
hey this is a good post and i agree with you

um yeah

>> No.1837493

Jean-Paul Sartre
Jesus Christ
Montaigne
Pascal

>> No.1837498

>>1837493
This is the best combo on here. Maybe ever.