PHILOSOPHY

[Anonymous No.20037442]

What are your specific opinions on
>The Presocratics
>Platonism and Neoplatonism
>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism, etc)
>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
>Kant and German Idealism
>Young Hegelians including Marx/Engels
>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and 20th century)
>Transcendentalism
>Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, etc)
>British Idealism (+ Royce, Personalism, etc)
>Phenomenology
>Frankfurt Circle
>Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc)
>Speculative Realism and CCRU (Land, Fisher)
>Early Analytic Philosophy (up to early Wittgenstein)
>Logical Positivism
>Ordinary Language Philosophy (including later Wittgenstein)
>Neopragmatism (Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Rorty, etc)
>Later analytic metaphysics (Kripke, Lewis, etc)
I guess if you want to mention Eastern philosophy you can, but I'm interested in every /lit/izen's opinion of these. LET THE WARS BEGIN

[Anonymous No.20037445]

>>20037442
they're alright

[Anonymous No.20037446]

>>20037442
Philosophy doesn't matter because you die in the end

[Anonymous No.20037469]

>>20037442
>The Presocratics
Retards who couldn't into becoming Aristotle.

>Platonism and Neoplatonism
Important, but ultimately a failure. It has been superseded by Catholicism.

>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
Important, but ultimately a failure. It has been superseded by Catholicism.

>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism, etc)
Peaked at Saint Augustine.

>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
Important, but ultimately a failure. It has been superseded by Catholicism.

>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
Important questions handled terribly.

>Kant and German Idealism
Distilled autism.

>Young Hegelians including Marx/Engels
Get a job. Marx is single-handedly responsible for much of the 20th century's suffering. It was going to happen anyway, but that it happened due to his hubris. His project was always going to fail. If animals will not abandon money and property, man will not either.

>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and 20th century)
Kirkegaard is indispensible. Nietzsche is a retard.

>Transcendentalism
Not important.

>Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, etc)
Who cares.

>British Idealism (+ Royce, Personalism, etc)
Dead empire.

>Phenomenology
A distraction from real science.

>Frankfurt Circle
Communists, clinging to dead bad ideas. Warmed-over Marx, with more pretension.

>Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc)
Pedophiles, performance artists, frauds. Being purposely obscure is not philosophy. They are literally the modern sophists, they deserve nothing but public shaming Socrates style.

>Speculative Realism and CCRU (Land, Fisher)
dude weed lmao fuck off with this one

>Early Analytic Philosophy (up to early Wittgenstein)
Wittgenstein based but like the phenomenologists he's a dead end waiting for science to advance.

>Logical Positivism
>Ordinary Language Philosophy (including later Wittgenstein)
Again.

>Neopragmatism (Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Rorty, etc)
Haven't read, probably shit.
>Later analytic metaphysics (Kripke, Lewis, etc)
Haven't read, probably shit.

Where's Alasdair MacIntyre? What a shitty list.

>eastern philosophy
lmao, no.

[Anonymous No.20037635]

>>20037469
So, what are your favorite philosophers?

[Anonymous No.20037733]

>>20037446

[Anonymous No.20037751]

>>20037442
>The Presocratics
Parmenides is cool
>Platonism and Neoplatonism
Yeah this is the good stuff
>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
Don’t know any of this
>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism,
Stoicism, Pyrrhonism, etc)
Don’t know this either
>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
Idk
>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
No idea
>Kant and German Idealism
Idk
>Young Hegelians including Marx/Engels
Idk
>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and 20th century)
Idk
>Transcendentalism
Idk
>Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, etc)
What’s that?
>British Idealism (+ Royce, Personalism, etc)
Idk sounds alright I guess
>Phenomenology
Don’t know
>Frankfurt Circle
Idk
>Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc)
I don’t know those guys
>Speculative Realism and CCRU (Land, Fisher)
No idea
>Early Analytic Philosophy (up to early Wittgenstein)
No clue
>Logical Positivism
Idk
>Ordinary Language Philosophy (including later Wittgenstein)
Sounds bad but I don’t know this stuff
>Neopragmatism (Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Rorty, etc)
Still no clue
>Later analytic metaphysics (Kripke, Lewis, etc)
Not sure

[Anonymous No.20037944]

>>20037442
>Presocratics.
Not impressive, though I suppose you have to start somewhere.
>Platonism.
Made significant contributions, though I ultimately reject plato’s dualism.
>Aristotleanism.
I like Aristotle, though disagree with his realism.
Hellenistic philosophy. The only one here I like is Cicero, the others are either garbage or redundant.
>Early rationalism. I hate Spinoza and his dogmatism(kantian sense). Descartes is slightly better though I reject his substance dualism.
>Early empiricism. Hume’s treatise is one of my favourite reads.
>Kant and German idealism. Kant and schopenhauer are the height of European philosophy. Hegel is a return to Spinoza, so hegel’s gross.
>Young hegelians. Care neither for dialectical materialism nor the labour theory of value.
>Existentialism.
Very important for understanding how systematic philosophy can easily become quite inauthentic to human experience if left to run a mock.
>Transcendentalism
Made a contribution to environmentalism, but besides this, kindy of gimmicky.
>Pragmatism.
I don’t like the pragmatic theory of truth.
>British idealism.
See opinion on Hegel.
>Phenomenology.
Similar with my view of bergson, it seems to rely to heavily on intuition, hence I reject it.
>Frankfurt.
See young hegelians.
>Postmodernism.
Relies on the outdated linguistics of Saussure and is relativistic. Waste of time.
>Speculative realism.
See postmodernism.
>Early analytic philosophy.
Don’t know enough to comment, though Whitehead is cool.
>Logical positivism. btfo’d by Kant 200 years before school existed.
>Ordinary language philosophy.
Don’t enough to comment.
>Neopragmatism.
See pragmatism.
>Later analytic metaphysics.
Don’t know enough to comment

[Anonymous No.20037958]

>>20037442
>Presocratics
Upvote

>Platonism and neoplatonism
Downvote

>Aristotelianism
Downvote, but upvote for Strato of Lampsacus

>Hellens
Upvote for Epicurus, downvote for the other two

>early modern British empiricism
Downvote

>Kant and german idealism
Downvote

>Hegelians
Downvote

>Existentialism
Downvote

>Transcendentalism
Downvote

>Pragmatism
Downvote

>British idealism
Downvote

>Phenomenology
Downvote

>Frankfurt circle
Downvote

>Postmodernism
Downvote

>Speculative realism
Dowmvote

>Early analytics
Downvote

>Logical positivsm
Not downvote but not upvote either

>Language philosophy
Downvote

>Neppragmatism
Downvote

>Later analytics
Neither upvote nor downvote

0/10 list op i hate nearly everyone

[Anonymous No.20037959]

>>20037944
(Cont.)
>Islamic and Judaic philosophy
indirectly btfo’d by Kant.
>Hinduism
See above.
>is fundamentally built on a life denying premise, that being the four noble truths, though I like Nagarjuna.
>Taoism.
Lao zi is alright, xhuang zi is underrated for highlighting the limits and ambiguities of language and the need to avoid overly systematic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20038033]

>>20037635
Jordano Petersilio

[Anonymous No.20038124]

>>20037469
>le REAL SCIENCE
faggot

[Anonymous No.20038146]

>The Presocratics
>Platonism and Neoplatonism
>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism, etc)
Who cares

>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
Some cool stuff, but gets tedious with too much consumption

>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
Garbage

>Kant and German Idealism
I don't like Kant, Hegel can chill

>Young Hegelians including Marx/Engels
Some better, some worse

>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and 20th century)
If you put Nietzsche in the same category as Kierkegaard, you are lost.

>Transcendentalism
Don't care

>Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, etc)
mostly garbage

>British Idealism (+ Royce, Personalism, etc)
trash

>Phenomenology
Only good in the context of media studies

>Frankfurt Circle
Benjamin is great, Adorno is garbage

>Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc)
Actually putting these people in the same category is retarded. That being said, Deleuze is the goat.

>Speculative Realism and CCRU (Land, Fisher)
Unhinged philosophy is fun

>Early Analytic Philosophy (up to early Wittgenstein)
>Logical Positivism
>Ordinary Language Philosophy (including later Wittgenstein)
I hate all of these with a passion and think they actively hurt philosophy as a whole

>Neopragmatism (Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Rorty, etc)
Rorty is okay sometimes, the rest is garbage

>Later analytic metaphysics (Kripke, Lewis, etc)
haven't read

[Anonymous No.20038185]

>>20037442
Honesly like all of it except the positivist, russell, and the modern larpers

[Anonymous No.20038190]

>he thinks philosophers refute each other

[Anonymous No.20038195]

>>20037944
plato wasn't a dualist, unwritten doctrines are inauthentic.

[Anonymous No.20038199]

>>20038190
Sense certainty is an oxymoron so I'm not sure what Hegel is on about in that chapter. Feels like he didn't even read Plato.

[Anonymous No.20038204]

>>20037733
>muh sun exploding
Even the heat death of the universe might be survivable if technology is advanced enough, let alone the death of the sun.

[Anonymous No.20038206]

>>20038195
Read the Timaeus, you don't even need to glance at the unwritten doctrines (which are, by the way, referenced in Aristotle regardless).

[Anonymous No.20038661]

>>20038204
People assume that their magical bs can be brought about by "technology." I swear, people rant about the "God of the gaps," but always fail to realize that they fall for the "technology of the gaps."

"In order to conceal the fantastic nature of their fantasies, they call in science" - F. G. Jünger

[Anonymous No.20039018]

>>20037635
Parmenides, Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, St. Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Eriugena, Duns Scotus, St. Ligouri, St. Aquinas, Leo XIII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI.

[Anonymous No.20039049]

>>20038124
>it's bad to say that pure speculation is just that
cope seethe phil101tranny

[Anonymous No.20039333]

I am narrowly read and occluded from a significant portion of the historical context. My opinion is really just about whether they interest me or not, and that's almost exclusively about how much I've heard about them. So I'll just list those excluding the ones that interest me out of necessity.

>The Presocratics
>Plato
>Aristote
>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism etc)
>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke)
>Kant
>Young Hegelians including Engels
>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche)
>Transcendentalism
>Phenomenology
>Frankfurt Circle
>Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, etc)
>Speculative Realism and CCRU (Land, Fisher, etc)

[Anonymous No.20039789]

bump

[Anonymous No.20039867]

>>20037469
Obviously you're a Catholic, but do you really feel anything that doesn't support your Catholic views is worthless? Don't find any of it interesting in a sort of roleplay/fiction sense at least, or worthwhile foe sense?
>>20038146
Same goes for you, minus the Catholicism.
>>20037751
Will be interested to see your thoughts if you get to learn more about what you said 'idk' to.
>>20037944
>>20039333
Probably the best responses in the thread.
>>20037958
Bait, but if you were serious who would you say you like most?

[Anonymous No.20039909]

>>20039018
>Jesus as a philosopher instead of Wisdom itself
>No Pius X
>2 post Vatican II Popes
>Probably reads the KJV instead of the Douay-Rheims
>Probably reads the Catechism of JPII instead of the Catechism of the Council of Trent
You aren't Catholic, you are a Catholicuck.

[Anonymous No.20039989]

>>20037442
>The Presocratics
Actually pretty underrated. It's mostly basic stuff but I still believe there's plenty of good stuff (haven't read enough of them)
>Platonism and Neoplatonism
Really influencal and goes far beyond what most philosophers have talked about even today but sometimes, it feels like they're just making shit up (see Phaedrus)
>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
Pretty good but was definitely overused through the medieval era, to a point where it offered nothing new. Also made philosophy inhrently dogmatic and sometimes pointless.
>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism, etc)
Pretty good, although some authors really suck.
>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
This is what got me into philosophy and what intrestets me the most. Descartes singlehandly saved philosophy, although he made some major errors. The cartesians are also pretty cool although completely forgotten and most of their work is lost (thankfully, I speak French)
>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
decent, but you can tell it was only supposed to refute cartesianism, without having any potential to become an entire philosophy. Hume is really good and I should read more of him.
>Kant and German Idealism
I haven't read beyond Kant at this point but I believe he solved most of metaphysics. vene if he was wrong, he at least offered a complete system.
>Young Hegelians including Marx/Engels
No
>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and 20th century)
I haven't read enough beyond these but I feel like they reduced philosophy to "lol how do you feel? bad? get good!" and didn't even try to make it something useful, which is still the case today sadly.

[Anonymous No.20039991]

>>20037751
very good post i enjoyed reading it

[Anonymous No.20040075]

>>20039909
>Jesus as a philosopher instead of Wisdom itself
pic. Wisdom books are good too, but wisdom is not a person.

>2 post Vatican II Popes
Yeah, Theology of the Body and Ratzinger Report are great. Communists and sexual deviants were btfo permanently. Deal with it.

>>20039867
>Don't find any of it interesting in a sort of roleplay/fiction sense
Philosophy is not roleplay or fiction.

>worthwhile foe
No, if people like Debord and Foucault and Deleuze or the Frankfurt School were worthwhile foes their ideas would be talked about. They're secular politics fashionable nonsense, completely superfluous attempts at grandiosity more than actually solving social problems. For that you need the tradition of Catholic social teaching, which sadly has been somewhat tainted in recent years by Francis who is a poor quality theologian.

[Anonymous No.20040152]

>>20039989
>The Presocratics
>Actually pretty underrated. It's mostly basic stuff but I still believe there's plenty of good stuff (haven't read enough of them)
There isn't a lot of material, so you can read it all pretty quickly.

[Anonymous No.20041591]

>>20037442
>>The Presocratics
9/10
>>Platonism and Neoplatonism
8/10
>>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
7/10
>>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism, etc)
5/10
>>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
5/10
>>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
4/10
>>Kant and German Idealism
8/10
>>Young Hegelians including Marx/Engels
5/10
>>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and 20th century)
8/10
>>Transcendentalism
6/10
>>Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, etc)
7/10
>>British Idealism (+ Royce, Personalism, etc)
5/10
>>Phenomenology
9/10
>>Frankfurt Circle
4/10
>>Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc)
8/10
>>Speculative Realism and CCRU (Land, Fisher)
7/10
>>Early Analytic Philosophy (up to early Wittgenstein)
4/10
>>Logical Positivism
1/10
>>Ordinary Language Philosophy (including later Wittgenstein)
2/10
>>Neopragmatism (Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Rorty, etc)
3/10
>>Later analytic metaphysics (Kripke, Lewis, etc)
2/10

[Anonymous No.20041666]

>>20037442
>The Presocratics
Based
>Platonism and Neoplatonism
Based
>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
Based
>Hellenistic philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism, etc)
Cringe
>Early Modern Continental Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc)
Cringe (excluding Spinoza)
>Early Modern British Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
Cringe
>Kant and German Idealism
Based
>Young Hegelians including Marx/Engels
Cringe
>Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and 20th century)
Based
>Transcendentalism
Cringe
>Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, etc)
Based
>British Idealism (+ Royce, Personalism, etc)
Cringe
>Phenomenology
Based
>Frankfurt Circle
Cringe
>Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc)
Cringe
>Speculative Realism and CCRU (Land, Fisher)
Cringe
>Early Analytic Philosophy (up to early Wittgenstein)
Cringe
>Logical Positivism
Cringe
>Ordinary Language Philosophy (including later Wittgenstein)
Based
>Neopragmatism (Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Rorty, etc)
Cringe
>Later analytic metaphysics (Kripke, Lewis, etc)
Cringe

Eastern philosophy:
>Theistic Hinduism
Based
>Atheistic Hinduism
Based
>Pantheistic Hinduism
Cringe
>Buddhism
Cringe
>Taoism
Based/Cringe
>Mohism
Based
>Mencian Confucianism
Cringe
>Xunist Confucianism
Based
>Legalism
Based

[Anonymous No.20041835]

>>20037442
>Platonism and Neoplatonism
>Aristotelianism (ancient and medieval)
Only ones that matter. The rest are garbage

[Anonymous No.20043215]

buuump

[Anonymous No.20043523]

>>20037442
>The Presocratics
Heraclitus and Pythagoras were based. I do also find the Atomists to have great views.
>Platonism and Neo-Platonism.
Pretty awesome.
>Everything else
Have not read enough to form any opinions on any of them.

[Anonymous No.20044956]

>>20037442

>Presocratics
Based and hitting-rocks-together-and-eating-beans-pilled

>Platonism
Completely cringe and ruined everything

>Aristotelianism
Logic/metaphysics admirable. Ethics is disposable and boomer tier.

>Hellenistic
Stoicism is a cope for LARPers; some valid Epicurean concepts (he anticipates Nietzsche's revaluation of values, for instance)

>Continental Rationalism
Cartesianism was almost as much of a catastrophe as Platonism. Spinoza gets a free pass for being a chad, and btfoing the synagogue. Leibniz was deranged but makes a good biscuit.

>Empiricism
Locke - literally retarded; Berkeley - admirably retarded; Hume - absolute chad, basically said all that can be said on the psychological/rational approach to epistemology.

>Kant, German idealism

Kant's critique of Rationalism/empiricism comes back around to an appeal to rationalism (don't try to tell me transcendental idealism is any different). Necessary, but autistic in the worst way imaginable. His ethics is a barn fire
Fichte and Wolff - disposable. Hegel is literally a demon of some kind, PoS me believe in dark forces for at least a month before coming to my senses. Shelling is somewhat based.

>Young Hegelians

Brimming with autists. Marx was somewhat right about labour. Engels - boring cunt. Stirner is more respectable in his Egoism, but was clearly a homosexual and drank milk (never trust a grown man who drinks milk). He does employ solipsistic, dangerously Cartesian reasoning to bolster his claims though, so actually I rescind my comment, Stirner was a dumb kraut like any other.

>Existentialism

If we are talking intelligent, critical existentialism - Nietzsche and Heidegger - then this is solid; it is the logical conclusion of all philosophical thought (i.e becoming aware of the issue of being, not merely putting up with with an "objective" existence) - death blow to realism and Cartesianism.
However - pussy, naval-gazing french existentialism like Camus and Sartre is absolute trash. Cioran, while perhaps having more in common with the latter, is much more honest and adequately self-debasing, and has the added benefit of actually trying to top himself. Cioran is perhaps the only real heir to Nietzsche.

>Transcendentalism
Disposable neo-spiritualism that only Yanks could come up with.

>pragmatism
Embarrassing

>British Idealism
So disposable that I don't even know what it is I'm throwing away, or if I'll miss it's presence.

>Phenomenology
Necessary, however Husserl flew too close to Deacartes. Heidegger is supreme here. Sartre injected phenomenology with the intellectual equivalent of saline solution.

>Frankfurt Circle
I prefer Cumberland sausages for their herby flavour.

>Postmodernism
All homosexual, except for Deleuze who was so homosexual that he actually turns out to be the most based philosopher in modern times. Good development of Nietzsche.

Analytics are all boring cunts not worth the paper they're printed on.

[Anonymous No.20045569]

>>20039989
Good thoughts, would recommend checking some of the stuff you haven't read but you're doing well.
>>20041591
Anything you'd rate a 0 or 10 if you could? Maybe not listed, or maybe more specific.
>>20041666
So you like ancient rationalism, Spinoza, Pragmatism, Phenomenology, and Wittgenstein, plus some Chinese stuff and theistic Hinduism. Curious to hear how you tie those together to the exclusion of the rest.
>>20044956
Decent, though spirited. Seems you're not a fan of the English or the French, as well as Plato.

[Anonymous No.20045765]

>>20044956
>Analytics are all boring cunts not worth the paper they're printed on.
>Anon, finding Continental obscurantism easier than Analytic, was desirous of persuading himself that it is better.

[Anonymous No.20046036]

>>20045765
honestly this seems to be the main fucking take on /lit/ and it's really annoying.

in the land of absolute elitism how on earth is everyone here not debating Kripkenstein left and right until they're blue in the face?

why aren't the analytics taken more seriously on 4chan? are they really memes or is the framework and semantics just 100 years ahead of their time