[ 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: 629 KB, 792x612, 1393024604924.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4592633 No.4592633[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I seek on exploring the most 'controversial' philosophers throughout history. I am rather familiar with Marx and Nietzsche, any others?

>> No.4592641

Rand, de Beauvoir, Derrida

>> No.4592639

Spengler, Bakunin, Schopenhauer Max Stirner.

>> No.4592642

i suppose ayn rand would be, too. she's just as short sighted as any other theoretical writer.

>> No.4592647

>>4592642
Rand's philosophy is pretty consistent. It's not like she fetishizes capital.

>> No.4592658

Nietzsche is hardly controversial in his essence, he is made into edgemasters by dumb hicks misreading him and falsely understanding his ideas.

>> No.4592670

>>4592647
she's consistent, but i don't think she took in the whole picture into account. much like communism, objectivism would only be able to occur on a very small scale, like her valley, and everyone would need to want to be a functioning part of it. i like her ideas, but i don't believe that it could ever happen across an entire country.

>> No.4592671

check out foucault, guattari

>> No.4592675

>>4592670
Are you talking about communism as an ideology, or communism as in a post-scarcity society?

I'm not talking about Rand's "social theory" (which the same as Marxism except she fetishizes the creative talent instead of the manual talent) so much as her philosophy, Objectivism.

>> No.4592686

Foucault, Althusser and the rest of the post-structuralist heideggerian feminist communist post-modernist École Normale Supérieure gnag.

>> No.4592689

>>4592671
>guattari
disgusting, the man who ruined deleuze

>> No.4592694

Heidegger of course.

>> No.4592704

>>4592675
i suppose i'm talking more about the implementation of the ideology into a post-scarcity society. i don't see any extreme ideology being practiced in a country in true form in today's society, or even back in the 50's. unless of course an entirely new country is established from scratch and everyone is on board with a single idea

>> No.4592706

>>4592704
>everyone is on board with a single idea
Hah, good luck with that.

>> No.4592711

>>4592706
well that's just it..which is why i say that marx, rand and many other theologists were short sighted

>> No.4592718

>>4592711
I have always remained, pondering the best possible way to obtain such a wave of individuals who agree with a single idea. Studying history and all of those 'historical revolutions' aimed towards drastically changing a society -- realizing that they all tend to spark by a handful of individuals, those 'idealist'. In the end, said idea expands...so arises the problems. -_-

>> No.4592736

>>4592689
>disgusting
bourgeois pig
>>4592711
>marx
>theologists
na

>> No.4592741

Feuerbach

>> No.4592753
File: 20 KB, 299x500, Search_for_a_Method.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4592753

Sartre links the two together (search for a method).

>In 1948 the Roman Catholic Church placed Sartre's oeuvre on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books).

>> No.4592760

>>4592753
And by 'the two' I mean nihilism and communism

>> No.4592761

>>4592753
"Never make equal what is unequal."
"To each according to their needs."
Sartre can go jump in a lake.

>> No.4592772

>>4592633
Defiantly Schopenhauer and Heidegger

Everyone else has been said 100x times

>> No.4592799

>>4592761
The first is a nietzschean outlook on life that you should not try to contain the creative masculine beast.
The second phrase you forgot a bit.
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Thus, the harder problems you are able to tackle, instead of tackling said problems with a herd mentality, you tackle them with your own conception of the universe around you, and you therefore benefit the majority of society and provide for their needs based on your ability, not who you are.

The links are tenable indeed.

>> No.4592803

>>4592753


more like he tried too.

>> No.4592811

>>4592760

>Nietzsche
>nihilism

god dammit why do people keep doing this

>> No.4592817

>>4592811
Friedrich was a moral nihilist

>> No.4592818

Definitely Heidegger, though that's more for his nazi affiliations than anything. To be fair, his early, less poetic philosophy does lend itself to dangerous interpretations concerning community and gatherings of people.

>> No.4592820

Max Stirner is probably the most controversial I know

>> No.4592831

>>4592817

No, he really wasn't. He believed that morals were the creation of society, sure, but that creation is beautiful and the wisest of men strive to create values, not to uphold them.

He's a really life affirming guy, if you'd care to read anything of his for more than 5 seconds.

>> No.4592840

>>4592818
I disagree, with his Letter on Humanism he showed himself to be "more humanistic/egalitarian" than the rest of the rabble stuck in the enlightenment.

>> No.4592869

>>4592686
Foucault was actually disliked by communists, especially members of the actual Communist Party. Derrida and him were strong rivals, Sartre called him "the last defense of the bourgeoisie", and he broke strongly with Althusser in that he rejected materialism. Furthermore, when asked whether or not he was allied with Marxists, he said he pretty much said, "I don't even know what Marxism stands for anymore."

>> No.4592872

>>4592820
controversial among whom exactly? the homeless?

>> No.4592877

>>4592831
While I partly agree with you, his reasoning on that part often seemed kinda half-assed. Felt like he was nihilistic, but didn't want to be.

>> No.4592885

>>4592877
>his reasoning on that part often seemed kinda half-assed

Provide examples next time or I'm deleting your post.

>> No.4592882

>>4592831
>but that creation is beautiful and the wisest of men strive to create values, not to uphold them.
That's moral nihilism

>> No.4592889

Wittgenstein

>> No.4592893

Thomas Ligotti

>> No.4592897

>>4592885
Eh, been a while since I read it, but he never really explained why or how a man could create values, he just kinda put it into the room.

>> No.4592902

>>4592882

If he's describing what a good (wise) man ought to do (create values), that's a morality in itself.

>> No.4592928

Isnt Satre rather controversial

>> No.4592934

>>4592897
>Eh, been a while since I read it

do you routinely memorize the conclusions you reach without the reasoning? that's a bad habit, m8.

>> No.4592941

>>4592799
>you therefore benefit the majority of society and provide for their needs
Have you actually read Nietzsche, or do you just want to claim him for your obsolescent political faction like some kind of trophy?

>> No.4592942

>>4592934
Well, the reasoning is that Nietzsche never exactly described how a man can create values that are actually... well... valuable.

Or did he?

>> No.4592986

>>4592902
No, objective morality is what a 'good' man should do. What he is describing is subjective morality which is in the realm of moral nihilism

>> No.4592989

>>4592941
That was a quote by Karl Marx

>> No.4592993

>>4592942
>reasoning is that Nietzsche never exactly described how a man can create values that are actually... well... valuable. Or did he?
You are like one of the only people ITT who understands Nietzsche.

>> No.4593000

>>4592986
>if it isn't objective mortality it's moral nihilism

ha

>> No.4593007

>>4593000
Yeah because moral nihilist asserts defined morality is meaningless, therefore it is up to each individual to shape their universe with their values

>> No.4593026

>>4592993
That's cool.

>> No.4593029

>>4593026
Yeah it is man, keep it up, and expound your knowledge. Correct knowledge is the best kind.

>> No.4593034

>>4593029
Will do.

>> No.4593091

>>4592658

The whole bit about master/slave mentality is pretty controversial to religious folk.

>> No.4593104

>>4592928

>Life is absurd and has no meaning besides that which you make for yourself

Everyone feels like that at some point, he's not that controversial

>> No.4593266

>>4593104
His ideas, more fleshed out in his writings, are a bit more involuted and esoteric than that.

>> No.4593315

>>4592840
Read his Rector-ship Address. That's why I made the distinction between early and later Heidi.

>> No.4593325
File: 14 KB, 277x408, ayn_rand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4593325

>>4592641
>>4592642
>>4592647
>>4592670
>>4592675
Saying Ayn Rand is a philosopher is like saying that L. Ron Hubbard is a religious prophet. Sure, L Ron's followers believe that, but everyone else sees it as the scam and work of fiction it is.

Rand was a fiction writer who turned her puerile understanding of philosophy into a drama starring Kant as Satan. Maybe me responding proves your point, but fuck I hate seeing her equivalated as a philosopher in a discussion including serious philosophers in history.

>> No.4593371

>>4592869
In the day, yeah. That's because there existed an official line (even for those on the sino end of the split) for which communists orgs could compare themselves. Not so at present.

>> No.4593385

>>4593266
As is usual with speedfreaks.

>>4593091
As is usual with religious folk.

You guys all know that the conversation in philosophy is dead, right? That the field and project are dead as a doornail?

>> No.4593396

>>4593385
>philosophy is dead

Do elaborate.

>> No.4593403

>>4593396
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5740

>> No.4593407

>>4593403
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Investigations-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/1405159286

>> No.4593408

>>4593396
He's about to suck wittgensteins circumcized, useless cock

>> No.4593410

>>4593407
You cur.

>> No.4593419

>>4593408
>>4593403

Sniffed around that lovely bouquet in the past, not exactly what I'd call a nail in the coffin.

>> No.4593490

>>4593325
who would you see then as an actual controversial, but realistic anarchist / communist writer? not being a douche, i actually really want to read works by someone like that.

>> No.4593521

>>4592694
Heidegger is a legit philosopher, probably best of the 20th century.
I can only assume you belong to the crowd that jumps at the first opportunity to inform us that "heidegger was a nazi and had an affair with hannah arednt" thus rendering him "controversial."

If I'm wrong with my lil straw man here, please tell: In what ways is Heidgger controversial?

>> No.4593529

>>4592658
Considering there's a ton of faggots walking around today, he's still pretty controversial overall.