[ 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: 66 KB, 500x713, tumblr_mluy1jURHl1qzn0deo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4548009 No.4548009[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Does /lit/ have any favorite philosophers?
Post your top 3.

>> No.4548015

>>4548009
Aristotle
Aquinas
Ayn Rand

>> No.4548016

Frege
Tarski
Kripke

>> No.4548023

Gene Roddenberry
Jesus christ
Kanye west

>> No.4548029

>>4548009
Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Marx

>> No.4548031

>>4548009
Sam Harris
David Hofstadter
Daniel Dennett

>> No.4548084

1. Hegel
2. Slavoj Žižek
3. Kanye West

>> No.4548110

Heraclitus
Wittgenstein
Heidegger

>> No.4548124

Judith Butler
Kanye West
Ayn Rand

>> No.4548143

>>4548084
>>4548124
is there something wrong with hegel and butler?

>> No.4548151

1. David Hume
2. Baruch Spinoza
3. Parmenides

>> No.4548160

>>4548143
>even having to ask this

>> No.4548185

Plato
Descartes
Hegel
Lenin
Badiou
Meillassoux

>> No.4548192

>all of these Kanye West selections

Huge fan of Kanye West, but what's the deal with that?

>> No.4548207

>>4548192
He coined and perfected an entirely new branch of Philsophy

>> No.4548209
File: 169 KB, 800x500, MbYVc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4548209

>>4548192

>> No.4548227

>>4548151
>Baruch Spinoza
>the man who proved God
mah mode nigga

>> No.4548236

>>4548209

>Voltaire
>Descartes

bretty gud

>> No.4548233

>>4548207

Which is?

I've always gotten huge humanistic vibes from him, which is one reason why I enjoy him very much, but you cannot seriously believe he has opened the door to a new school of thought, right?

>>4548209

So you believe there is no merit to labeling Kanye as a philosopher?

>> No.4548238

>>4548207
lol'd

>> No.4548248

Kant
Locke
Molyneux

>> No.4548250

>molyneux
>nietzsche
>dawkins

>> No.4548259

>>4548233

Does Kanye love wisdom? I submit that he doesn't. If that is the case, and I'm open to discussion on whether or not it is the case, how could there be any purpose to labeling him a philosopher?

>> No.4548263

>>4548233
>this guy hasn't read A New Treatise on Yeeziology

>> No.4548279

>>4548233
why the fuck are you even taking this seriously

>> No.4548284

The people listing Ayn Rand are trolling

...right?

>> No.4548322

Molyneux
Ayn Rand
Rothbard

>> No.4548344

Jaden Smith
Kanye West
Wittgenstein

>> No.4548354

>>4548009
>you cant say nuthin'

Lions..

>> No.4548356

>>4548344
Actually smartest guy in thread

>> No.4548360

>>4548151
Hume wrote like a writer and has been disliked by writers; Spinoza wrote like a philosopher and has been adored by writers. Why is this?

>> No.4548375

>>4548322
>mfw at least half of /pol/ would answer OP's question un-ironically with these 'philosophers'

>> No.4548410

>>4548356
AHAHAHAHA WOW see, he made a joke, and then you ADDED TO IT by calling him the smartest guy in the thread. BUT! But--HE WAS ACTUALLY NOT BEING SERIOUS!!

Oh that is rich my good le sir. Thank you so much for your contribution to his joke, your shitty attempt to add to his post was truly side splitting. Many upboats and le internets to you!

>> No.4548418

>>4548360
This is because you have interpreted their writings as such. In reality, calling the writings of Hume as writings that look as if they were written by a writer is moronic, since there is plenty of philosophical terminology found in his texts. Broadly speaking, your question -- why is this? -- thus falls apart. The reason behind a question that originates within, and thanks to your own subjective interpretation, is to be found within your own head.

>> No.4548431

>>4548410
woah faggot explosion
no dude i was serious.

>> No.4548457

>>4548418
This isn't merely my own "subjective" interpretation. Spinoza advocated for use of the intellect over the imagination; Hume, vice versa. Spinoza wrote in a direct style; Hume wrote in a more literary style. I'm not the first person to take note of this. There are multiple essays out there, written by academics, on the same subject.

>> No.4548461

>>4548015
>Aquinas + Ayn Rand
I loled.

>> No.4548465

1. Socrates (obligatory)
2. Wittgenstein
3. Heraclitus

>> No.4548500

>>4548457
Then again, there are other interpretations that are in opposition to your interpretation, and the interpretations of others you mentioned.

Calling Hume's writings as non-philosophic is, to put it mildly, silly; and that would anyone care about this is also beyond me.

>Spinoza wrote in a direct style; Hume wrote in a more literary style.
Hume's "literary" style (whatever the hell you mean by this) does not imply that it is non-philosophical.

Roughly speaking, one's writing could be called philosophical if it contains philosophical terminology and/or (for those times) Aristotelian Logic. Otherwise, I do not see anyone that chooses to ignore, or is not aware of, these two criteria, could possibly and successfully engage any philosophical issue and/or inquiry of importance.

>> No.4548520

>>4548431
>HURRRR FUCKIN DURRR

Shut up you retarded faggot and stop trying to ape other people's shitty jokes. There is no karma for you here.

>> No.4548530

>>4548465
le obscure face

>> No.4548534
File: 38 KB, 687x600, 687px-Butterkeks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4548534

>>4548227
>yfw he was probably atheist

>> No.4548536

>>4548534
*pantheist

>> No.4548538

Schopenhauer
Leibniz
Kant

>> No.4548540

>>4548500
>sophomore philosophy student detected

Not the guy you're talking to but -- Jesus! -- you're clueless. And that you don't know what he means by a literary style... I can't even talk to you.

>> No.4548541

Aquinas
Spinoza
Nietzsche

>> No.4548546

>>4548536
monist*

Stop forcing pantheism on Spinoza, he denied the label himself.

>> No.4548545

Jaden Smith
Grimace
Christopher Walken

>> No.4548543

>>4548540
You have no arguments. Gather your objections in a coherent whole and visit me again.

>> No.4548563

>>4548546
>he denied the label himself.

As if he has any say in the matter. He couldn't risk heresy, could he?

>> No.4548570

>>4548520
>>4548410

what a fuckin' twat.

>> No.4548584

>d'Holbach
>Lucretius
>Feuerbach

>> No.4548585

>>4548563
>he couldn't risk heresy

I think his works were plenty heretical one way or the other, man.
I want to quote the letter in which he addressed this, but I can't find it at the moment.

>> No.4548589
File: 200 KB, 717x880, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4548589

>>4548570

>> No.4548592

>>4548546
yes this. he didn't believe we should worship god or nature and criticised religion, don't think he could be any kind of theist

>> No.4548622

>>4548592
yeah but the world we know he said is composed of extension and thought/mind/ideas, and that it's only a few aspects of god
so he still believed in a god that transcends what we experience, seems pretty theistic to me. The worship isn't necessary

>> No.4548630

>>4548589

>Oh that is rich my good le sir
>Many upboats and le internets to you!
>HURRRR FUCKIN DURRR

where do you think you are?

you've got trisomy

>> No.4548720

>>4548009
Wittgenstein
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche

>> No.4548738

Ernst Jünger
Arthur Schopenhauer
Carl G. Jung

I'd say that Jung qualifies as a philosopher.

>> No.4548753

>>4548410
This is what happens when /lit/ tries

>> No.4548842

Nietzsche
Bergson
Deleuze

>> No.4548902

Montaigne
Kierkegaard
Heraclitus

>> No.4548939

>>4548009
Wittgenstein
Hsün Tzu
Marx