[ 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: 39 KB, 600x292, 1353968108861.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3182910 No.3182910[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So, if Kant is to philosophy as Newton is to physics, then who is to philosophy as Einstein is to physics?

Assuming of course /lit/ knows shit about physics or it's history -which it should, if it considers itself even remotely educated

>> No.3182924

Stirner

>> No.3182925

Wittgenstein

>> No.3182936

>>3182925
Stirner

>> No.3182935

1) those are the most basic history of physics things ever, stop trying to pretend like they're some occult shit

2) there's no particular reason that there should be an equivalent figure, and trying to fit different things into like molds - in this case, attempting to act as though the history of philosophy must follow a specific pattern and that this pattern must be similar to the pattern of the history of physics - is bad juju

3) heidegger and wittgenstein

>> No.3182939

>Every giant in every field has a concrete parallel in every other field.

Would someone tell me who the Frank Lloyd Wright of philosophy is?

>> No.3182942

'My opinion, based on nothing and with no explanation' - "anon"

>> No.3182953

>>3182935
1) Hence my equating it to knowing "shit" about the field.

Have a nice day.

>> No.3182946

who is the Mario Batali of philosophy

Assuming of course /lit/ knows anything about cooking or its history - which it should, if it considers itself even remotely cultured

>> No.3182958

Einstein was a philosopher too brah. So was Newton. So was Leibniz.

You just keep trying to convince yourself that science and the arts are exclusive.

>> No.3182972
File: 56 KB, 298x375, balotelli.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3182972

who is the Mario Balotelli of philosophy?

Assuming of course /lit/ knows anything about football or its history - which it should, if it considers itself even remotely normal

>> No.3182975

>>3182925
This

>> No.3182984

>>3182958

Also,

>it's
> -which
>of course
>ambiguous 'shit'

Maybe you should get some education.

>> No.3182981

>>3182972
>Europooran rules footieball
>worth knowing

>> No.3182992

Husserl. By pretty much any measure.
>at the foundation of both analytic and continental
>one way or another influential in both
Same as how Einstein was like the guy at the start of Quantum theory and Relativity.

>> No.3182997

>>3182981
>mfw an American™ was jam of the beautiful game near me

>> No.3183004

This thread is bullshit

>> No.3183009

>>3182972

Camus

>> No.3183015

>>3182981
>implying american football is more than barbaric, homoerotic violence with a round object thrown in for distraction

>> No.3183025

If you mean someone whose fame extends far outside of academia into popular culture, probably someone like Bertrand Russell or Sartre. Even the physics popularizers would have equivalents in philosophy - Carl Sagan would be roughly equivalent to a Peter Singer or John Rawls.

>> No.3183032

>>3183015

>implying sport
>not appreciating barbaric, homoerotic violence

iseriosuy hgpe 5y guys, and so forth

>> No.3183048
File: 177 KB, 600x400, 1353692642375.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3183048

>>3182984
>He quotes the wrong posts

>> No.3183053

>>3182925
>>3182992
Either Wittgenstein or Husserl. If we want to look at Newton and Einstein as establishing paradigms of scientific thought and extend that analogy to paradigms of philosophy, it would be either of these two.

>> No.3183741

>So, if Kant is to philosophy as Newton is to physics, then who is to philosophy as Einstein is to physics?

also Kant.

>> No.3183793

Who is to philosophy as Salvador Dali is to painting?

>> No.3183800

>>3183793
Hegel

>> No.3183896

Who was the John Carmack of philosophy?

Assuming of course /lit/ knows anything about graphics programming or its history - which it should, if it considers itself even remotely l33t

>> No.3183902

Who is to philosophy as Jeff Mangum is to music?

>> No.3183919

>>3183902
aquinas, because "I LOOOVE YOUUUU JEEEESUUS Cuh-Rye-HI-Hiest!

>> No.3183933

>>3182910
Socrates

>comparing bullshit with any stem figure
>ishydiityy

>> No.3183971
File: 12 KB, 247x248, UOARGH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3183971

> if Kant is to philosophy as Newton is to physics, then who is to philosophy as Einstein is to physics
AAAAAAAAAAAGH

>> No.3184295

Plato is philosophy's Newton, bear in mind just how much older philosophy is

>> No.3184309

>>3182924
YES! This, and it's the first answer, aw yeah.

>> No.3184364

Wittgenstein, easy answer. But for Kant to be compared to Newton his ideas would actually have to work unless you're talking just in terms of 'reputation'

>> No.3184396

>>3183015
>Implying that description won't work perfectly well for literally any other sport involving a ball

>> No.3184676
File: 22 KB, 250x305, stirner32.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3184676

>>3182924
>>3182936
>>3184309
I came to this thread to say this as well. I love you, /lit/.

>> No.3184688

>claims to be educated
>comparing incomparable things

>>>/sci/