Objective Philosophy Tier List

[Anonymous No.19992789]

[Anonymous No.19992800]

>>19992789
Where. Is. Max.

[Anonymous No.19992818]

all in garbage except for the Greeks and Catholic philosophers.

[Anonymous No.19992823]

>>19992789
>No Aristotle in that list
Plato/Socrates > Aristotle > Aquinas > Plotinus = Proclus = Damascius = Augustine > Husserl = Leibniz > Hegel > Kant = Schelling = Heidegger = Hume > Schopenhauer > Descartes = Nietzsche > Kierkegaard

The rest on your list are shit.

[Anonymous No.19992862]

>>19992800
He's in poor, which is a pretty easy indicator, along with the over-valuing of the likes of Plato, that someone just got filtered and is a massive pseud, or mistakenly thinks they're making a funny joke. He's no worse than anyone else in good. The lack of Wittgenstein is also another major indicator this was made with like reddit levels of introductory philosophical understanding and history involved. Just ignore it, it's missing shitloads of actually impactful and important philosophers, and only includes the likes of what you might see in pop-philosophy videos no youtube.

[Anonymous No.19992866]

every day i pay my /lit/ tax: tolerating zoomer twitter tourist posts about shit they've never read

won't someone rid me of this burden

[Anonymous No.19993002]

>>19992862
He's in mediocre.

[Anonymous No.19993011]

>>19992823
>old = good

[Anonymous No.19993012]

>>19992862
Stirner is not a philosopher, he's the opposite of a philosopher, he is the opposite of humanity and society, he is a pirate. He is the mind of all criminality. He is the spirit of the enemey of all functioning civilization. He is a wild animal predator in the dark surrounding a people's village. His existence compels his denial by the hand of all people's

[Anonymous No.19993024]

>>19993011
Correct

[Anonymous No.19993029]

>>19992789
Why is Russel hated? He may have overextended himself on continental philosophy themes, but did his logical work not largely pave the way for the computer age? Or is this all to say, he wasn't do much a philosopher at large but a mathematician?

[Anonymous No.19993395]

>>19993012
"The The final point I want to make is that philosophy finds itself in an impasse; without discipline it could accomplish nothing and yet in that it cannot embrace the extremes of its subject, the extremes of the possible as I have called them, the outer most reaches of human life, it is doomed to failure. If it is to be fundamental even a philosophy of death must turn away from its subject. But this is not to say that philosophy is still possible if it becomes absorbed in it, losing itself in the final vertigo, or only if at the summit philosophy denies philosophy and sneers at philosophy. Supposing indeed that philosophy really sneered at philosophy; that would entail at once discipline and the abandonment of discipline; at such a moment the sum of the possibles is at stake in its entirety, and the sum is a synthesis, not merely an addition, since it ends in that synthetic view where human effort shows its impotence and relaxes in the feeling of its impotence with no regrets. Without discipline this point could not have been reached, but discipline itself can never go the whole road. This is the truth of experience." - p 259

From where I'm sitting he is the pirate king that sits atop philosophy

[Anonymous No.19993463]

>>19992789
Fixed your list, OP.

[Anonymous No.19993473]

>>19992789
>Aristotle not on the list
>Ayn Rand in garbage tier
Have you no shame?

[Anonymous No.19993477]

>>19992823
>Kant = Schelling = Heidegger = Hume
lol

[Anonymous No.19993478]

>>19992789
qrd on kant, i have never read anything his autism produced

[Anonymous No.19993479]

>>19993395
>strive to be impotent
At last I truly see

[Anonymous No.19993605]

>>19993478
You don't know what you're missing...

[Anonymous No.19993613]

>>19992823
I... can't actually find anything wrong with that ranking.
Huh.

[Anonymous No.19993623]

>>19992789
If you have read that much philosophy and still think that objectivity is real, you should be quartered and shot.

[Anonymous No.19993634]

>>19992866
Take the /lit/ man's burden.

[Anonymous No.19993635]

>>19993395

>"The The final point I want to make is that philosophy finds itself in an impasse; without discipline it could accomplish nothing and yet in that it cannot embrace the extremes of its subject, the extremes of the possible as I have called them, the outer most reaches of human life, it is doomed to failure.

Stuttering I see... Ok so discipline I suppose he means thoroughness, honesty and rigor. And that to fully be disciplined in philosophy may result in unsavory conclusions, one wishes to avoid, thereby avoiding being an act of undisciplined philosophical investigations. He seems to be implying if philosophy is made aware of the extreme possibility of human actions, humans should be compelled toward performing those actions, I don't know I have to assume a lot because maybe else where in text more context was given but in this paragraph not much.


>If it is to be fundamental even a philosophy of death must turn away from its subject.

What do you mean by that sir? Philosophy being fundamental means a philosophy of death turns away from death? Or turns away from disciplined philosophy? The act of philosophizing removes one from the reality of subject into a realm of pure abstraction?


>But this is not to say that philosophy is still possible if it becomes absorbed in it, losing itself in the final vertigo, or only if at the summit philosophy denies philosophy and sneers at philosophy.

Absorbed in what? Discipline? Lack of discipline? Death? The subject? Escaping the subject? Abstraction? Oh and I'm supposed to know what the final vertigo means? Last dizziness? Philosophy loses itself in the face of death?


>Supposing indeed that philosophy really sneered at philosophy; that would entail at once discipline and the abandonment of discipline;
Philosophy to sneer at philosophy, huh. What would that be like, a chef deciding to stop cooking, a baseball player deciding to stop playing baseball? Or he is presuming the disciplined culmination of philosophy work will philosophically express itself as a complete lack of substance, justification, quality, and value?

[Anonymous No.19993640]

>>19993395
>at such a moment the sum of the possibles is at stake in its entirety, and the sum is a synthesis, not merely an addition, since it ends in that synthetic view where human effort shows its impotence and relaxes in the feeling of its impotence with no regrets.

Philosophy expands our perception and minds of what is possible. Humans individual and collective must live, get on with life and get by, so any times sum total of awareness of possibilities ultimately must be absorbed into the state of things, neglected, or chosen from of few of the possibilities. Obviously all farmers and carpenters and mechanics and nursery nurses can't stop what they are doing for a month straight and contemplate their sum total philosophical possibilities.

It is so easy to anarchists to neglect the grand systemic symbiotic me work of others when so selfishly constricted of their most immediate self impression of desire to be a nudist, not wear a hat and tie, diminish some manners, jerk off on a tree withouut getting funny looks, and not pay rent for an apartment but cobble some plywood together by the river
>Without discipline this point could not have been reached, but discipline itself can never go the whole road. This is the truth of experience."

Discipline was required for humans to figure out all possible human actions; but discipline can't decide what actions to choose and follow? Because experience suggests that?

[Anonymous No.19993648]

>>19992823
>Hegel is better than Kant
Retard.

[Anonymous No.19993655]

>>19993640
>systemic symbiotic **me work**
*network*

[Anonymous No.19994377]

>>19993029
He was pretty much completely refuted by chad Gödel philosophically, his contributions to mathematics are not really that important and his magnum opus is a paperweight at best. Besides all that he was a smug bastard and most people hate smug bastards

[Anonymous No.19994383]

>>19992789
Sub 50 IQ

[Anonymous No.19994387]

>>19992789
The only thing objective about this list is that it’s objectively shit.

[Anonymous No.19994398]

>>19992789
Rousseau is above everyone else retarded faggot.

[Anonymous No.19994408]

Put Schopenhauer and Spinoza in S tier. Those two plus Kant make all other philosophers of the modern era look like bumbling amateurs. Also Schop's peacoat game is unsurpassed before or since

[Anonymous No.19994411]

https://youtu.be/7NXdY-vq4CQ

[Anonymous No.19994674]

>>19993635
>>19993640
>>19993479
Ya... poor posting etiquette on my part it seems. Won't be making this particular mistake again. Plowed through this one without making an effort to take notes and it shows. I thought about stirner when I sleepily read "sneer at philosophy" and though "oh I know I'll go flip throught that book I read weeks ago to find it and seemingly attribut it to him. That will be funny lol. Maybe I'll get called out directly and I can say 'Property belongs to the one who knows how to possess it' then argue that it is stirners quoat since he can use me to possess it by proxy. Maybe I can make some shit up about stirner exemplifying de Sades sovereign man and tag 'what can be more disturbing than the prospect of selfishness becoming the will to perish in the furnace lit by selfishness?' from page 175 the only thing I actually wrote down then bullshit about this relates to how going to the extreme of utter fetterlessness would be a miserable experience in the end. And that is one of the things I think max is out to show by calling ideals spooks on the one hand but saying someone who rejects them all is acting like a fool." But no we're out here enforce effort posting today. I am tired and unwilling to spend the next few hours rereading these chapters in an attempt to synthesize something in a likely to fail attempt to save my ass from the consequences of my transgressions on this one. Pretty humiliating having myself exposed publicly infront of all of you like this. Good thing I'm anonymous on here. ha ha...

[Anonymous No.19994678]

>>19992823

Based.

[Anonymous No.19994889]

>>19994674
No worries bruv, shesh man chill, I don't even know what's going on or what you mean. I just saw that quote placed in me, in response to my calling out stirner generally from my slightest knowledge of what he stands for,vso attempted to analyze that quote. Is it not from stirner?

[Anonymous No.19994924]

>>19992862
I don't know how easy it is to overvalue Plato. He looms over the rest of Philosophy mainly by being so foundational. Sure several of his ideas were kinda shit, but it's very telling that little of Philosophy before him survives outside of fragments.

[Anonymous No.19994943]

This thread confirms: philosophy is a subject for sad fools desperate to mince words over nothing of any importance.

[Anonymous No.19994946]

>>19992789
brain rot

[Anonymous No.19995020]

>>19994889
Consider my cool down innitated.
The quoat is from chapter 6 of Erotism Death and Sentuality by George's Bataille

[Anonymous No.19995068]

>>19992789
why is spinoza not replaced with heidegger...
HOW the fuck is Schopenhauer below Nietzsche?!
WHERE THE FUCK IS WITTGENSTEIN

[Anonymous No.19995076]

>>19993395
gonna hijack to ask you
what do you think of marx and engels response to stirner? i haven't cracked it yet but was wondering if they put a dent in his superarmor

[Anonymous No.19995082]

simple way to tell if someone posting about philosophy has any idea what they're talking about or not?

no mention of analytic or analytic-adjacent philosophers after Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein does not count, even a dog knows about Wittgenstein, and the academe have well moved on

go back to writing notes in the margins, kid

[Anonymous No.19995101]

People see politics as shameful and lower than 'pure' philosophy now. Weird.

[Anonymous No.19995104]

>>19992789
kinda racist to have only straight white old dudes
where are the women and negro philosophers>

[Anonymous No.19995417]

>>19995082
wittgenstein deserves atleast to be mediocre for pulling off the hat trick that is PI, the blue and brown notebooks were also quite illuminating as they sort of paved the way to some other concepts. Personally he's equivalent to Descartes but not quite on Kant or Spinozas level

[Anonymous No.19995458]

>>19992789
Where is Wittgenstein ?
Why is Hegel below Kant ?

[Anonymous No.19995495]

Where is Jordan Peterson on that list

[Anonymous No.19995507]

>>19995495
Because he's not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.19995517]

>>19995082
>no mention of analytic or analytic-adjacent philosophers after Wittgenstein
Non-entities. It's not even philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19995679]

>>19992789
Yeah I agree fully with this list
Just maybe lower Hume for a tier, but there would be no real difference desu

[Anonymous No.19995682]

>>19994408
Spinoza was retarded and influenced nobody important
Literally a side episode for retards

[Anonymous No.19995717]

>>19995682
>what is German Idealism

[Anonymous No.19995729]

>>19992823
christlarper zoomer

[Anonymous No.19995739]

>>19992789
Land is based though

[Anonymous No.19995752]

After reading a bunch of philosophy this is what I came up with. Ignore Einstein and Newton because they're not usually classified as philosophers.

[Anonymous No.19996173]

God>>>Aristotle>Hobbes>Jefferson>Montesquieu>Locke>Hume>Smith>Popper>North>Milton>Tocqueville>the rest>shit>>>Plato>Hegel>Cunt>Rousseau

[Anonymous No.19996202]

Plato = Kant = Schopenhauer > the rest

[Anonymous No.19996287]

>>19996173
Cringe antifederalist.

[Anonymous No.19996458]

>>19995101
Political ideas and solutions are easy, simple and obvious

[Anonymous No.19996464]

>>19995682
What is 20th century french rationalism

[Anonymous No.19996699]

>>19996458
They are not. That I am here delaying my attempt at manifesting them is proof enough of this.

[Anonymous No.19996765]

>>19992823
Based, would put PLATO/ARISTOTLE/AQUINAS at the SS tier and Socrates at S tier.

[Anonymous No.19996878]

>>19996765
>Plato and Socrates in different rows

[Anonymous No.19996938]

>>19992789
Ayn rand is not philosophy she is a jewess i read her novels as a teen she for example is against being a martyr this is because she wants to weaken the european people groups cohesion she is a racist genocidal maniac like all jews try stoicism instead... Doing your duty... Bearing the work stress and cruelty of this world... Serving yourself and society as best you can

[Anonymous No.19996940]

>>19996699
>That I am here delaying my attempt at manifesting them is proof enough of this
What do you mean by this ? What about politics as of now is not simply understood and known?

[Anonymous No.19996958]

>>19996765
You've never read either of the three

[Anonymous No.19997816]

>>19995076
If you want my take on that you're going to have to wait awhile. It's not on my shelf of reads for this year and I only made it to page 34 in my copy of the German Ideology before shelving it when I had Considered it higher priority. Fwiw the foot note on stirner in my penguin copy of the communist manifesto places Stirner as forcing Marx to "...divest all ideas of any autonomous role what so ever." and saddling his followers "... with the self defeating task of explaining the place of a voluntarist movement in an economically determined historical process.". Considering Bataille's accusation in the accursed share that the proletariat has become obsessed with things as a result of their world being so devoid of value that they happily subordinate themselves to the status of things to aquire means of creation of those things. So based on that, I would cautiously assert that any dents in Stirner's armour were to Marxist's detriment in the end.

[Anonymous No.19997861]

>>19995076
If you want my take on that you're going to have to wait awhile. It's not on my shelf of reads for this year and I only made it to page 34 in my copy of the German Ideology before shelving it when I had Considered it higher priority. Fwiw the foot note on stirner in my penguin copy of the communist manifesto places Stirner as forcing Marx to "...divest all ideas of any autonomous role what so ever." and saddling his followers "... with the self defeating task of explaining the place of a voluntarist movement in an economically determined historical process.". Considering Bataille's accusation in the accursed share that the proletariat has become obsessed with things as a result of their world being so devoid of value that they happily subordinate themselves to the status of things to acquire means of creation of those things, I would cautiously assert that any dents in Stirner's armor were to Marxist's detriment in the end.

[Anonymous No.19997871]

>>19992789
Marx is basically that one tranny mod of r/antiwork

[Anonymous No.19998072]

>>19992789
Plato a shit.