Post, rate, recommend

[Anonymous No.20104673]

Post your favorite philosopher for each of the categories below

>metaphysics
>epistemology
>ethics
>aesthetics
>politics

[Anonymous No.20104676]

>metaphysics
Berkeley
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Plato
>aesthetics
Aristotle
>politics
Hobbes

[Anonymous No.20104690]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
Plato
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Emerson
>aesthetics
Schopenhauer
>politics
Rousseau

[Anonymous No.20104706]

>metaphysics
Spinoza
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Derrida
>aesthetic
Nietzsche
>politics
Arendt

[Anonymous No.20104719]

>>20104690
You were based up until the last one

[Anonymous No.20104724]

dunno lol

[Anonymous No.20104725]

>metaphysics
Hegel
>epistemology
Hegel
>ethics
Hegel
>aesthetics
Nietzsche
>politics
Marx

[Anonymous No.20104738]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
Plato
>epistemology
Plato
>ethics
Plato
>aesthetics
Plato
>politics
Plato

[Anonymous No.20104741]

>>20104725
You are cringe

[Anonymous No.20104747]

>>20104738
based

[Anonymous No.20104768]

>>20104741
no u

[Anonymous No.20104786]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
Hegel
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Aristotle
>aesthetics
Danto
>politics
Stirner

[Anonymous No.20104787]

>>20104719
Cope, Rousseau is great. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I agree with a great deal with it. I think everyone is born with a piece of the divine within them, and so most people will naturally gravitate towards goodness. It’s society and culture that corrupts people. Man, in his natural state, doesn’t lust for things like fame and wealth because those things don’t exist except within society and culture. Also, practically speaking, men have to work together more closely and harmoniously to survive in their natural state.
On top of all of this, Rousseau was one of the first philosophers to point out that men are not essentially rational (nor should they be.) He’s a great writer too, and I love his more personal works too. The way he writes about the simple, everyday things and feelings is so beautiful and human. I almost think of him as a proto-psychologist.

[Anonymous No.20104816]

>>20104787
I respect you because you otherwise have great taste but I don't agree with Rousseau's individualism at all. Man is a social animal so trying to isolate him from "society" is nonsense. If anything this new social atomization is what is not natural. Man in his natural state is bound up in tight knit communities and social bonds. I.E. We live in a society.

[Anonymous No.20104885]

>>20104690
>>ethics
>Emerson
What's his ethics?
>>20104706
>>ethics
>Derrida
What's Derrida's ethics?

[Anonymous No.20104892]

>>20104787
>Rousseau was one of the first philosophers to point out that men are not essentially rational
What the fuck are you talking about you retarded pseud? Even Hobbes said that to whom Rousseau was replying to.

[Anonymous No.20104897]

>>20104816
>Man is a sexual animal so trying to isolate him from "sex" is nonsense
Yet another blindingly retarded belief started as fact by someone who has to stop breathing to type.

[Anonymous No.20104899]

>>20104885
>>>ethics
>>Emerson
>What's his ethics?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance
It’s not really a traditional philosophical ethics, but I don’t care

[Anonymous No.20104905]

>>20104892
I said one of the first, not THE first. Also, I haven’t read Hobbes. I’m only familiar with Hobbe’s philosophy through secondhand sources.

[Anonymous No.20104914]

>>20104905
Pretty much all philosophers ever agreed that humans in general are dominated by passions.

[Anonymous No.20104935]

>>20104914
>Rousseau was one of the first philosophers to point out that men are not essentially rational (nor should they be.)
>(nor should they be.)
I feel like you keep leaving out the entire context. The majority of philosophers who recognized people to be irrational and dominated by passions thought they should try to become rational and bring their passions under control. Rousseau was generally against this. He didn’t believe people should act like animals, but he thought it was more important for humans to act on emotion and sentimentality than reason and traditional morality. He beautifully articulated this concept in his novel Julie.

[Anonymous No.20105067]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
ghazali
>epistemology
phyrro
>ethics
hume
>aesthetics
edgar allen poe
>politics
hegel

[Anonymous No.20105071]

>>20104673
>splitting it up in branches like a filthy an*l*tic

[Anonymous No.20105089]

>>20105067
>>aesthetics
>edgar allen poe
I’ve only read a few poems and short stories by Poe. Did he have an aesthetic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.20105202]

>>20104935
Ok fair, other philosophers were not degenerates. I didn't realise you just liked him because he promoted degeneracy (given that you put that in brackets) rather than because of some intellectual virtue.

[Anonymous No.20105282]

>>20105067
How can you see ghazali's approach to metaphysics as being justified if you have a skeptic attitude to knowledge and knowledge claims?

[Anonymous No.20105306]

>>20104673
Epictetus
Marcus Aurelius
Seneca

[Anonymous No.20105355]

>metaphysics
Marx
>epistemology
Marx and Lukacs
>ethics
Marx
>aesthetics
Don't care
>politics
Marx

[Anonymous No.20105366]

>>20105355

[Anonymous No.20105377]

>>20104673
>>metaphysics
anselm
>>epistemology
hegel
>>ethics
plato
>>aesthetics
neitzche
>>politics
hobbes

[Anonymous No.20105384]

>>20105377
>>>metaphysics
>anselm
What's his theory?

[Anonymous No.20105412]

>>20105384
heavily platonist, he has several ontological arguments that he puts forward especially in his lesser known work, gave the first argument for the omnipresence of God as far as I know, and has the only good theory of angels and free will that i know of

[Anonymous No.20105482]

>>20105412
>The first ontological argument in Western Christian tradition[i] was proposed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work, Proslogion (Latin: Proslogium, lit.'Discourse on the Existence of God'), in which he defines God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived," and argues that such being must exist in the mind, even in that of the person who denies the existence of God.[1] From this, he suggests that if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality, because if it existed only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one who exists both in mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.
Do people believe in this stuff? Why would a being that exists in reality must necessarily be greater than a being that exists in one's mind? What gives reality the necessary attributes of being "greater"? All that the argument leads to is that there must be a "greatest" being in reality (which automatically must exist in mind in order to be perceived and reality is perceiveable) but that being could be physical being.

[Anonymous No.20105624]

>>20104690
What's Schopehauer's aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.20105682]

>>20105482
>Do people believe in this stuff?
Sort of, they believe in the Abrahamic project. Abrahamism is ultimately about asserting the primacy of the human ego, so it goes around knocking down anything that gets in the egos way. The Gods are the first target (we live in THEIR world, not OURS, and this is a grievous affront), but then it naturally has to turn to other things, like animals and plants and such. It also has to turn on the very structures that Abrahamic religion uses to explain why it was doing the prior round of knocking down. The point isn't to explain how Yahweh works, but rather to explain him away. His Perfection and Simplicity are just ways of explaining him away by making him simpler than the human ego, and thus something that can be controlled and defeated by it. The entire idea of the holy text that is more real than reality takes this to the extreme, literally denying that the supposed creator of the universe is anything other than a fictional character.

[Anonymous No.20105806]

>>20105624
Schopenhauer believed that art reflects platonic ideals, which Schopenhauer believed are the intermediaries between the world of will and the world of representation. When contemplating art and the platonic ideas reflected in it, we are able to temporarily transcend the world of representation. In doing so, we are temporarily relieved from the suffering inherent to the world of representation.

[Anonymous No.20105827]

>>20105806
Was Schopenhauer a brainlet rationalist? I thought he was just a budget Kant, and Kant still maintained empiricism to a respectable degree. I'll probably never read Schopenhauer at this rate.

[Anonymous No.20105863]

>>20105827
No, he builds his philosophy off of Kant’s. Schopenhauer, however, contests Kant’s claim that we can never experience things in themselves. He explains that there is one thing that each of us experience in itself: ourselves. He thinks that when we analyze ourselves, we find that we are the representations of a Will. Thus, Kant’s worlds of noumena and phenomena become Schopenhauer’s worlds of Will and representation. The platonic ideals act as an intermediary between the worlds of Will and representation; they are the Will half manifested into representation but not completely, so to speak. When we contemplate the platonic ideals reflected in art, we are able to temporarily transcend the world of representation. This is a good thing, as the world of representation is characterized by suffering due to the constant striving caused by it being a representation of the Will.

[Anonymous No.20105950]

>>20105863
Aside from the existentialist moping about life it sounds coherent enough though not particularly interesting. That art brings us closer to the divine has been held quite commonly and a secularisation of that is a step backwards. Overall it sounds pretty mediocre and vulgar in line with other romantics.

[Anonymous No.20105980]

>>metaphysics
Jordan Peterson
>>epistemology
Jordan Peterson
>>ethics
Hitler
>>aesthetics
Sasha Grey
>>politics
Pol Pot

[Anonymous No.20106426]

>>20104673
All these kant and hegel faggots itt ahahaha ywnbaw https://youtu.be/QBd31fIMxDM

[Anonymous No.20106624]

>>20106426
This faggot was both excommunicated from the Catholic Church and kicked out of SSPX. The fact that any self proclaimed “Catholics” take him serious is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.20106628]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
David Lewis
>epistemology
Richard Feldman
>ethics
James Rachels
>aesthetics
Arthur Danto
>politics
Carl Schmitt

It's so obvious none of you guys actually read philosophy lmao.

[Anonymous No.20107374]

>>20106628
but you posted the worst list so far

[Anonymous No.20107796]

>>20106628
>American professional "philosophers"
Yikes

[Anonymous No.20107909]

>>20104706
Not gonna lie this is cringe tier

[Anonymous No.20108020]

>>20107909
That's antisemitic

[Anonymous No.20108045]

>>20105089
yeah he wrote an essay called the philosophy of composition.

>>20105282
>if you have a skeptic attitude to knowledge and knowledge claims?
i dont. skepticism paved the way for ghazali's intuitionism. i just didnt want to name ghazali twice

[Anonymous No.20108250]

>>20108045
>ghazali's intuitionism
What does it say?

[Anonymous No.20108267]

>>20104738
Yes.

[Anonymous No.20109100]

>>20104738
>>20108267
What's Plato's aesthetics

[Anonymous No.20109474]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
Leibniz
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Hume
>aesthetics
Uh, maybe Burke, I guess? This is weak area for me
>politics
Machiavelli or Aristotle

[Anonymous No.20109477]

>>20105355
Of course you wouldn't care about beauty, look at your architecture

[Anonymous No.20109482]

>>20109474
I would probably add Rousseau is also a good ethicist

[Anonymous No.20109499]

>>20109474
shit swap out Hume for Kant, had a second opinion.

so its this Leibniz, Kant, Kant, Burke, Machiavelli/Aristotle

[Anonymous No.20109675]

>>20109474
What are Leibniz' metaphysics and Hume's ethics?

[Anonymous No.20109742]

>>20104673

Metaphysics: Shankara or Gregory Palamas
Epistemology: Kant
Ethics and Aesthetics: Kant and Aristotle
Politics: Karl Popper and John Stuart Mill

[Anonymous No.20109775]

>>20109742
mix of based and cringe

[Anonymous No.20109799]

>>20109675
I corrected myself with Kant's ethics, as I believe ethics are a universal law that should be applied to all situations and intent matters more than means or ends. Hume thought morals should matter based on their usefulness to society.

Leibniz, felt the world was a composite of ever changing "monads", represented by humans, buildings, trees and animals that are all variations on the one, supreme creator of all things, the monad of all monads, which is God.

[Anonymous No.20109807]

>>20109799
of course Spinoza's explanation is probably equally as valid.

[Anonymous No.20109856]

>>20104787
he influenced the psychological theories of Skinner and Chomsky from what I've read

[Anonymous No.20109879]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
Feuerbach
>epistemology
Whats that?
>ethics
Rawls
>aesthetics
Scruton
>politics
Locke

[Anonymous No.20110009]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
Laozi
>epistemology
Laozi
>ethics
Confucius
>aesthetics
Shakespeare
>politics
Mozi

[Anonymous No.20110199]

>>20109799
How does Leibniz' metaphysics solve the mind-body problem?

[Anonymous No.20110214]

>>20104673
>metaphysics
plotinus
>epistemology
pyrrho
>ethics
spinoza
>aesthetics
i'm sraight
>politics
plato

[Anonymous No.20110222]

>>20109100
beauty is what reminds the soul of the good

[Anonymous No.20110223]

>>20110214
Your choices are definitely gay

[Anonymous No.20110249]

>>20110223
hey!

[Anonymous No.20110506]

>metaphysics
Schopenhauer.
>epistemology
Kant.
>ethics
Schopenhauer.
>aesthetics
Schopenhauer.
>politics
Hobbes.

[Anonymous No.20110582]

>>20110222
not bad

[Anonymous No.20110583]

>>20110506
What are Schopenhauer's ethics?

[Anonymous No.20110615]

>>20110583
Universal compassion

[Anonymous No.20110691]

>>20110615
That sounds retarded. It's just humanism which is just globohomo empty garbage.

[Anonymous No.20111187]

>>20110199
The monads are coordinated by god and are not directly causally related to each other since they are all consciousness and not material. You as you think of yourself are made up of a hierarchy of monads with primitive monads being your body and a soul monad being what you think of as your mind. These monads can only conceive of themselves and rely on their own imagination of their surroundings. So he doesn't need to explain the body since it's simply a different mode of the same Consciousness that makes up the mind and everything else

[Anonymous No.20111493]

Kant chads rise up

[Anonymous No.20112429]

>50% of the thread using Kant for epistemology for street credibility despire not having read his first critique