Philosophy

[Anonymous No.18988552]

Who is the final boss of philosophy? Or which philosopher has some of the most difficult to fully comprehend and internalize work that is actually a worthwhile investment of time or stands above the work of other philosophers?

[Anonymous No.18988558]

>>18988552
Why tf is the head edited out of this one?! Defeats the purpose of the painting.

[Anonymous No.18988585]

Philosophy doesn't really have a 'final boss', although I think Wittgenstein does come close.
As for the second point, Spinoza, Hegel, Kant, Heidegger and (personally) Deleuze come to mind.

[Anonymous No.18988616]

>>18988558
post the original

[Anonymous No.18988632]

>>18988616
Nvm, it was from a series as far as I can tell. Or a study, who tf knows. Moreau is pretty cool, if you like his paintings I recommend Tissot.

[Anonymous No.18988640]

proclus

[Anonymous No.18989066]

>>18988552
Adi Shankara (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.18989846]

>>18988552
In the West:
>John Scotus Eriugena
>Nicholas of Cusa
>Marsilio Ficino
>Sergei Bulgakov
>Erich Przywara

>>18989066
This, especially as interpreted by Prakasatman. Ramanuja and Kamalashila come close too.

[Anonymous No.18990025]

>>18988585
WITTGENSTEIN WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE

[Anonymous No.18990598]

>>18988552
R.C Waldun.

[Anonymous No.18990629]

>>18988552
There is no boss of philosophy. The strongest philosophical position is skepticism/nihilism, and every philosopher is shilling their brand of cope.

[Anonymous No.18990657]

>>18988552
>Who is the final boss of philosophy?
Yourself.

[Anonymous No.18990675]

the voynich manuscript

[Anonymous No.18990694]

>>18990675
kek

[Anonymous No.18990756]

>>18988552
You're asking the wrong question.

Not WHO, but WHAT?

And the answer is Quality.

Go forth, meditate, and return once you have attained enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.18990770]

My twisted world

[Anonymous No.18990772]

my manifesto desu

[Anonymous No.18991163]

The final boss is writing your own treatise

[Anonymous No.18991862]

>>18990629
>The strongest philosophical position is skepticism/nihilism
No it’s not, because skeptics are unable to account for the self-evident existence of consciousness

[Anonymous No.18991873]

Me.

[Anonymous No.18991884]

>>18988552
hegel, the archon

[Anonymous No.18992127]

>>18991862
They don't need to. The burden is on others to explain it, and justify it beyond doubt.

[Anonymous No.18992134]

>>18991862
>self-evident existence of consciousness
nietzsche destroyed this meme on gay science and beyond good and evil

[Anonymous No.18992144]

>>18990629
>The strongest philosophical position is skepticism/nihilism
Based

[Anonymous No.18992175]

>>18988552
Socrates.

[Anonymous No.18992207]

>>18992127
>They don't need to.
They do if they want their skepticism to be taken seriously, instead of it being regarded as foolish and self-refuting. If you are a complete skeptic about the existence of everything, then you have to explain what justifies your skepticism about the existence of consciousness itself. That consciousness exists is indisputable, as its the precondition of being people able to argue for or against skepticism, without us being conscious we wouldn't even be able to entertain the notion of being skeptic in the first place.

Hence, that we are debating skepticism in the first place is positive proof of the existence of consciousness, which means that the skeptic being skeptical viz. the existence of consciousness is a position which is contradicted by logic and empirical experience, hence it is on the skeptic to explain why we should be skeptical about the existence of consciousness. If the skeptic cannot provide a good argument for this, then their skepticism is refuted by them being unable to explain away something which quite obviously exists.

QED

hylics seething

>>18992134
How? There is no way to refute it. Try posting the quote by which you think he destroyed it, I could use a laugh.

[Anonymous No.18992284]

Schopenhauer is the only philosopher you need to read. There is no value in reading anyone else. You don't even need to read Kant and Plato contrary to his own words because he summarizes, critiques, and completes their own work in his book.

[Anonymous No.18992291]

>>18992207
>>18992207
>They do if they want their skepticism to be taken seriously, instead of it being regarded as foolish and self-refuting. If you are a complete skeptic about the existence of everything, then you have to explain what justifies your skepticism about the existence of consciousness itself.
Nope, you're the one making the claim so ironically you've perfectly describe your own case.

>That consciousness exists is indisputable
That's begging the question.
>as its the precondition of being people able to argue for or against skepticism
p, therefore q, given q, does not imply p
>without us being conscious we wouldn't even be able to entertain the notion of being skeptic in the first place
Can you justify this beyond it being "self-evident"? There are plenty of alternative hypothesis for this.
>Hence, that we are debating skepticism in the first place is positive proof of the existence of consciousness, which means that the skeptic being skeptical viz. the existence of consciousness is a position which is contradicted by logic and empirical experience
Not if you cannot substantiate the previous claims.
>hence it is on the skeptic to explain why we should be skeptical about the existence of consciousness
The skeptic is not making any claim, you are.
>If the skeptic cannot provide a good argument for this, then their skepticism is refuted by them being unable to explain away something which quite obviously exists.
Another appeal to "obviously". You've just provided your own mystic interpretation of things, and have failed to provide anything to back it up.

[Anonymous No.18992293]

>>18989846
red-pill me on Prakasatman

[Anonymous No.18992367]

>>18992291
>Nope, you're the one making the claim so ironically you've perfectly describe your own case.
You were the first one to claim that skepticism is the most consistent position, I was just replying to you by noting that your claim is wrong, because skeptics are inconsistent when it comes to consciousness.
>That's begging the question.
Acting like people can meaningfully reply to someone without being conscious of what the other person said is begging the question even more, it contradicts everything we know from logic and experience, while what I'm saying doesn't
>p, therefore q, given q, does not imply p
One cannot formulate a reply to someone without being conscious of what you are replying to, otherwise there would be no way to have your reply be related in any fashion to what the other person said. By replying to my statements your behavior demonstrates that you are conscious of it, and your words implicitly accept it, but you are unable to explain why anyone should doubt that they are conscious. Your own behavior contradicts what you are arguing for.
>Can you justify this beyond it being "self-evident"?
Yes, nothingness doesn't produce experience, the very meaning of nothingness or non-existence is mutually exclusive with subjective experience.
>There are plenty of alternative hypothesis for this.
Lol, try to cite any of them
>Not if you cannot substantiate the previous claims.
I have in this post
>The skeptic is not making any claim, you are.
That's wrong because the skeptic in asserting the correctness of their skepticism and in arguing for it is claiming that there is no proper foundation for accepting the existence of things. If they weren't asserting this as the correct position, being skeptic and being non-skeptic would be two equally plausible positions, there being no reason to accept skepticism over non-skepticism. In order to defend or promote skepticism over non-skepticism it involves making claims about the correctness of one over the other.
>and have failed to provide anything to back it up.
I have though

[Anonymous No.18992372]

L A R U E L L E

[Anonymous No.18992501]

>>18991873

[Anonymous No.18992509]

Popper

[Anonymous No.18992523]

>>18992207
Establishing that consciousness exists hardly helps you defend anything else from skepticism

[Anonymous No.18992532]

>>18992284
Explain your reasoning, because I was the guy who posted the thread the other day about what I need to read in order to understand Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.18992542]

>>18992523
If consciousness is admitted as existing then skepticism isn't all-encompassing but it has an exception, if it has an exception then it's not really a consistent philosophical position.

[Anonymous No.18992550]

>>18992367
>You were the first one to claim that skepticism is the most consistent position, I was just replying to you by noting that your claim is wrong, because skeptics are inconsistent when it comes to consciousness.
Can't be inconsistent if you have nothing to be consistent with.

>Acting like people can meaningfully reply to someone without being conscious of what the other person said is begging the question even more it contradicts everything we know from logic and experience, while what I'm saying doesn't
You can act in a system without buying into it, and yes, you would need to justify logic and experience.

>One cannot formulate a reply to someone without being conscious of what you are replying to, otherwise there would be no way to have your reply be related in any fashion to what the other person said. By replying to my statements your behavior demonstrates that you are conscious of it, and your words implicitly accept it, but you are unable to explain why anyone should doubt that they are conscious. Your own behavior contradicts what you are arguing for.
You've simply restated your position without proving why q implies p.

>Yes, nothingness doesn't produce experience, the very meaning of nothingness or non-existence is mutually exclusive with subjective experience.
I never claimed that there was nothing. This does not address the above problem at all.

>Lol, try to cite any of them
daniel dennett :^)

>I have in this post
waiting next post

>That's wrong because the skeptic in asserting the correctness of their skepticism and in arguing for it is claiming that there is no proper foundation for accepting the existence of things. If they weren't asserting this as the correct position, being skeptic and being non-skeptic would be two equally plausible positions, there being no reason to accept skepticism over non-skepticism. In order to defend or promote skepticism over non-skepticism it involves making claims about the correctness of one over the other.
I don't need to provide any positive proof for my position, just reject all others.

>I have though
Every argument has boiled down to "it's self-evident".

[Anonymous No.18992653]

>>18992550
>Can't be inconsistent if you have nothing to be consistent with.
Did you forget that you claimed skepticism is the most consistent position? Skepticism is what skeptics would have to remain consistent in. In order to substantiate their position while being consistent skeptics would have to demonstrate why they are justified in being skeptic towards awareness, but this is foolish and self-defeating. Something that cannot be justified in any fashion and which is contradicted by the fact of immediate experience isn't consistent because in order for it to be accepted as a plausible position one has to explain why experience seems to contradict it, otherwise its rendered implausible.
>you would need to justify logic and experience.
The extremely unlikely possibility that everything we know about experience and logic is wrong can be dismissed and set aside as not a serious position with Occam's razor
>without proving why q implies p.
The impossibility of the alternative proves q implies p, because the alternative violates basic logic (nothingness/non-existence doesn't produce positive experience).
>I never claimed that there was nothing. This does not address the above problem at all.
We are talking about the existence of consciousness or subjective experience/presence and being skeptical or non-skeptical of its existence. If it doesn't exist, then that amounts to saying consciousness doesn't exist but still magically still seems to take place, in other words you are saying the non-existence of awareness still produces or involves the positive fact of experienced awareness, i.e. non-existence being the basis of something positive which is a contradiction.
>daniel dennett :^)
Funny you say that because dennettfags always whine about people attacking a strawman when they claim he says consciousness/conscious experience doesn't exist. In any case I thought he doesn't deny that there is subjective experience, just that he denies that this is anything beyond information processing? That's not a skeptic position but a materialist one, which is incompatible with skepticism.
>I don't need to provide any positive proof for my position, just reject all others.
But when it involves the rejection of everything else to an extent which is contradicted by experience, which is what being skeptical of the existence of awareness involves, it becomes contradicted by experience and hence becomes inconsistent

[Anonymous No.18992881]

>>18992653
Quotes omitted for reply size.

>Did you forget that you claimed skepticism is the most consistent position?
Don't think I've ever claimed that. You seem to be confusing skepticism with a positive claim on non-existence, which is not what I've done.

>The extremely unlikely possibility that everything we know about experience and logic is wrong can be dismissed and set aside as not a serious position with Occam's razor
We're not even in the realm of talking about possibilities, but if you grant me that then you have failed to prove your point. Not very QED. Even ignoring skepticism, Occam's razor is unjustifiable.

>If it doesn't exist, then that amounts to saying consciousness doesn't exist but still magically still seems to take place, in other words you are saying the non-existence of awareness still produces or involves the positive fact of experienced awareness, i.e. non-existence being the basis of something positive which is a contradiction.
I am not claiming anything, but that is a possible solution, yes. See below.

>The impossibility of the alternative proves q implies p, because the alternative violates basic logic (nothingness/non-existence doesn't produce positive experience).
That does not prove anything. I never claimed that nothing exists, as stated above. You asked about consciousness. It's on you to explain how discussion implies consciousness, and not something entirely different.

>Funny you say that because dennettfags always whine about people attacking a strawman when they claim he says consciousness/conscious experience doesn't exist. In any case I thought he doesn't deny that there is subjective experience, just that he denies that this is anything beyond information processing? That's not a skeptic position but a materialist one, which is incompatible with skepticism.
Skepticism is not incompatible with anything, because it simply chooses not to have a position on anything. You asked for a counter example to:
>without us being conscious we wouldn't even be able to entertain the notion of being skeptic in the first place
Dennett's answer is that it is an illusion, because it is all information processing.

>But when it involves the rejection of everything else to an extent which is contradicted by experience, which is what being skeptical of the existence of awareness involves, it becomes contradicted by experience and hence becomes inconsistent
You're playing very fast and loose with your words. Your argument existence -> awareness -> consciousness -> discussion, then discussion therefore consciousness is after the fact. If you wanna move off that and discuss the other two, then we can, but I would insist that you justify logic at that point, without using logic.

[Anonymous No.18993007]

>>18992532
The World as Will as Representation encompasses almost every area in Philosophy and he basically completes each branch. Explaining the entire way through and he hits the nail on everything. I haven't one read one thing so far didn't that make perfect sense. He is the one philosopher I felt that understood exactly how humans worked and he wrote it down objectively not trying to gain intellectual points but actually trying to understand humans and the world. 99% of Philosophy can be scraped aside from a few areas he didn't touch.

[Anonymous No.18993019]

>>18993007
That is pretty amazing to hear yeah I recently started reading the Presocratics so I could read Plato and eventually Kant to read Schopenhauer, but maybe I should just take a crack at it blind.

[Anonymous No.18993081]

>>18993019
Schopenhauer's explains everything really well you don't really need to read Kant and Plato. I would skim through some secondary sources if you want because it might be slightly confusing at first but I'm a retard and it eventually the terminology clicked and it becomes extremely simple. Read The Cambridge Edition of all his works. Much easier to read translation and more accurate. The introduction too explains his entire philosophy real simple

[Anonymous No.18993094]

>>18993081
>>18993019
I meant skim through secondary sources of Schopenhauer because when I jumped in immediately the first time I had no idea what he meant by Representation, Principle of Sufficient Reason, Will, etc but they're easy concepts and once you read over them in a secondary source or the introduction it will make everything easy

[Anonymous No.18993114]

>>18988552
>Who is the final boss of philosophy
Such linear thinking has no place in philosophy. Philosophy is inherently perspectival and, a network of ideas rather than a strict hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.18993121]

>>18993114
>perspectival and
and rhizomatic

[Anonymous No.18994593]

bump

[Anonymous No.18994621]

Plato

[Anonymous No.18994673]

>>18988552
The first bosses are the final bosses. It's Plato and Aristotle. It was always Plato and Aristotle. Niggas who claim that The Science of Logic or Difference and Repetition (just lol) are the most difficult philosophy books have read Plato's Parmenides and Aristotle's Metaphysics so superficially that you can hardly say they've read them at all.

>>18990629
Nope. Real skepticism doesn't exist, and if it did, it woud immediately revert to quietism, and thus be impotent.

>>18992127
Nice going believing in the power of words to convey information Mr. "Skeptic".

>>18990756
Go fix your motorcycle boomer.

[Anonymous No.18995139]

>>18994673
what are plato and aristotles thoughts on the trinity?

[Anonymous No.18995157]

>>18988552
The first boss is Sjruru Chunchunmaru. >>18995017

[Anonymous No.18995224]

Start with the pyramids

[Anonymous No.18996075]

>>18995224
is the book of the dead worth reading?

[Anonymous No.18996677]

Thales of Miletus

[Anonymous No.18996713]

>>18995139
Plato literally invented the Trinity. Christians ripped it off from him and tried to force it as a reading of their holy books.

[Anonymous No.18996800]

>>18989846
Imagine being this much of a pseud.

[Anonymous No.18996802]

>>18990629
Skepticism is self-refuting and self-defeating. True skepticism can't even be skeptical of other arguments because it is fully skeptical of itself, of its own skepticism. Non-"true" skepticism, which is to say skepticism which still holds to some firm ground one way or another and thus has some ground to be skeptical of others, is really fundamentally as dogmatic as every other philosophy, they merely have fewer basic assertions (and are usually unskeptically dogmatic themselves by rejecting certain principles of truth that are really self-evident and can only be rejected by a reason that is willfully being used to reject something it doesn't want to accept).

[Anonymous No.18996815]

>>18988552
Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.18996949]

>>18996815
came to say this

[Anonymous No.18996971]

>>18996949
God bless, anon.

[Anonymous No.18997845]

>>18996800
what's your problem with that selection?

[Anonymous No.18998295]

>>18988552
>Who is the final boss of philosophy
Your own opinion

[Anonymous No.18998763]

>>18988558
Moreau did different versions of it

[Anonymous No.18998911]

>>18990629
>The strongest philosophical position is skepticism/nihilism
imagine basing your philosophy on an unhealthy state of mind and calling in "strong"

[Anonymous No.18998926]

>final boss of philosophy

[Anonymous No.18999021]

>>18996677
keek

[Anonymous No.18999069]

>>18996802
Yeah bro

[Anonymous No.18999197]

>>18988552
>that is actually a worthwhile investment of time
None.

[Anonymous No.18999455]

>>18998911
I am not a skeptic or nihilist, but for what reasons would you qualify those positions as unhealthy? If the goal of philosophy is to make unshakeable observations and discover truth then I don't see how it could be unhealthy to a person beyond le existential crisis.

[Anonymous No.18999794]

>>18988552
>>18988632
>>18998763
>Moreau
Nice. Love his work.

Anyway to OP's question, Socrates has been giving me endless keks due to him shitposting so hard he got himself executed.
That really is the "end" of philosophy: being able to be perceived as "correct" of reason and needing to be put to death because of how right you are.
The Tibetan Buddhists are similar. They devote themselves to leaving this world though meditation (rather than taking Gnostic shortcuts, which in my understanding are equally valid exit means, just more demoralizingly extreme) and have, just coincidentally, suffered genocides for their ungovernableness: they invoke their end.
Any philosopher who is not put to death for his work is a mere sophist, unconcerned with philosophical truth, only with rearranging words.
Anyone who argues in favor of incarnate life is a little demiurge, they are no lover of wisdom: and it is easy to recognize ideas that will lead you into further entanglement with life.
There is also the Hindu position, which as I understand it is that life is to be enjoyed, a playground of the gods. If you're not having fun, disincarnate and refresh yourself. If you're having fun, further entangle yourself.

Make a "final boss" of whom or whatever you want.
This is a sandbox game.

[Anonymous No.18999821]

>>18988552
>which philosopher has some of the most difficult to fully comprehend and internalize work that is actually a worthwhile investment of time or stands above the work of other philosophers
St. Dionysius the Areopagite
St. Maximus the Confessor

[Anonymous No.18999918]

>>18999794
>Any philosopher who is not put to death for his work is a mere sophist, unconcerned with philosophical truth, only with rearranging words.
incredibly based, thank you friend

[Anonymous No.19000651]

>>18990025
>WITTGENSTEIN WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE
No, philosophy was a complete fraud and Wittgenstein exposed her with her own lies.