[ 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: 13 KB, 334x400, intellectual.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865186 No.4865186[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Who is the most important and influential philosopher of the 20th century?

>> No.4865193

>>4865186
Baudrillard

>> No.4865199

Sam Harris

>> No.4865202

>important
Heilhitler, Huscarl, Pooper, Weiningerstein, Shamu, Jean-Paul van Dasein, Fuck off

>influential
Some fat lesbian

>> No.4865203

>>4865199
Sam Harris actually fits this title more than Bertrand does.

>> No.4865211

Russell or Heidegger, probably.

>> No.4865213

de Beauvoir

>> No.4865230

It's Sartre
How is this even a question

>> No.4865254

Gilles Deleuze

>> No.4865255

Wittgenstein

>> No.4865263

Gabriel Agbonlahor

>> No.4865266

>>4865213
kek

>> No.4865267 [SPOILER] 
File: 89 KB, 465x465, 1399505493837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865267

you know it

>> No.4865268

ur mom

>> No.4865270

>ITT: "most influential" = muh favorite philosofer

>> No.4865273

Before 1950-Heidegger
After 1950-Wittgenstein

>> No.4865275

frege, moore, russell, witty

>> No.4865279

>>4865186
Marx was certainly the most influential philosopher ON the 20th century. I think that still counts

>> No.4865288

>>4865186
Most important = William F. Buckley
Most influential = P. T. Barnum

>> No.4865300

Wittgenstein

>> No.4865360

>>4865186
Skinner
Dewey
Marcuse

>> No.4865468

>>4865266
She affected an enormous social change, which you can only say for a handful of philosophers, especially if that change stems from their writing rather than their non-writing efforts.

>> No.4865872
File: 44 KB, 505x404, 23dca68836a9cfe5cf682fd76c99c4223bffea38256d16ff0cb31feffde5f680.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865872

>>4865468

>> No.4866726

Sam Harris

For millennia philosophers failed to agree on free will and objective morality. Then Harris applied science and solved both problems.

>> No.4866760

Russell, hands down.

You don't even have to like Russell, it's pretty hard to deny that both the reactions to his work and his own blunders were incredibly influential and field shaping.

>> No.4866762

Theodore Roosevelt. He literally conceived and gave birth to liberalism and the new left as we know it

>Public works projects with debt for growth
>war mongering in the modern era
>meddling in global affairs.
>pretending to help minorities so his rating don't crash

Roosevelt was the most monumental man in the past 100 years.

>> No.4866768
File: 18 KB, 242x300, peirce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866768

>> No.4866808

wittgenstein or maybe heidegger

>> No.4866810

>>4866808
i think i came here to post this exact text

>> No.4866835

>>4866760
>Russell, hands down.
I am familiar with the name, but only as the guy who wrote that really bad history of philosophy. How is he important?

>> No.4866841

>>4866835
Try actually reading him.

>> No.4866842
File: 43 KB, 615x345, spaghetti monster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866842

Stephen Hawking, because he called philosocharlatans out on their BS.

>> No.4866850

>>4865203
>>4865199

samefag and retarded

>>4865211

Definitely contenders

>>4865213
>>4865230
>>4865254

no

>>4865255

definite contender

>>4865270

seems like most answers so far.

>>4865275

How does Moore fit into your list?

>>4865279

This just makes it occur to me that the OP is vague. Marx definitely had a huge impact on the world but in terms of philosophy as a discipline, not as much. I think we see something similar with Sartre who was celebrity in France and had a larger influence on lit theory than philosophy. Assuming we're talking about philosophy as a discipline, I don't think Marx really counts (especially since he was 19th century and if we take influence into account regardless of authorship taking place in the 20th century then Plato auto wins).

>>4865360

lol either the most subtle troll in the thread or the most senseless list.

>>4865468

took me until this comment to realize you weren't trolling with the Beauvoir answer.

>>4866760

not hands down


CORRECT ANSWERS IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER:

Russell
Wittgenstein
Heidegger
Frege

This depends on how we're supposed to determine importance and influence. I take their importance to be pretty much equivalent to influence, not who I see as important because I agree with him more.

>> No.4866852

>>4866835
One of the architects of analytic philosophy and formal logic. Also took on Wittgenstein as his protege. You could say he's to analytic philosophy what Husserl was to phenomenology.

>> No.4866857

>>4866852

Yes but then you actually sit down to read Philosophical Investigations and realize that analytic philosophy is bullshit.

>> No.4866870

>>4866857

Explain.

>> No.4866871

>>4866852
>analytic philosophy and formal logic

You see, I don't consider formal logic a part of philosophy. The problem is not the idea itself, having rules for manipulating formal objects is pretty cool. The whole problem is that these rules only apply to abstract objects, but if you want to call it philosophy, it's going to refer to 'the world' in some way (something outside of formal logic). Now using formal logic will basically serve to make your argument more legitimate than other arguments which are less 'objective' (ones without formal logic). However, this will be bullshit because all the subjectivity, all the personal opinions, all the bias will simply go into the points at which 'the world' is connected to, or translated into, formal logic. You cannot actually represent things or phenomena in formal logic without fundamentally giving up its objectivity. The entire structure of formal logic is predicated on the premise that its rules and proofs are 100% internal and abstract.

>> No.4866886

For literature? Northrop Frye. Come at me.

>> No.4866904

>>4865202
>Jean-Paul van Dasein
hahahaha fucking died.

>> No.4866917
File: 1.09 MB, 1956x2940, Nietzsche187c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866917

Nietzsche

>died year 1900

>> No.4866927

>>4866917

except no sensible person considers him a 20th century philosophy since he isn't. Mozart being resurrected as a useless cripple wouldn't make him a 21st century musician.

>> No.4866931

>>4866927
>no sensible person

Wow you really floored him with that ad populum.

>> No.4866932

>>4866871

All of the logicians in philosophy departments around the world are shitting their pants hoping their dean's don't read your shattering critique of logic and decide to fire them.

>> No.4866936

>>4866931

It's not an ad populum if there's no appeal to popularity taking place, retard.

>> No.4866938

>>4866936

Reread your post and realize that you are the retard.

>> No.4866943

>>4866938

lololol sensibility is a trait not a quantity, retard.

>> No.4866946
File: 55 KB, 300x400, Heidegger16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866946

>> No.4866948

>>4866943

"No" is a quantifier, retard.

>> No.4866961

>>4866948

and what's relevant is that the people who are sensible believe X while people who aren't, may or may not believe X (or, you ought to believe X if you're sensible). This isn't an appeal to popularity. An appeal to popularity would be to say that you ought to believe X because most people do.

On a side note, the thrust of my argument isn't contained in the first 4 words and I think you know that. Stop being retarded.

>> No.4866964

>>4865213
Are you trolling? Why give such an obviously ridiculous answer?

>> No.4867032

>>4866964
>>4865468

I really don't think there is any 20th Century philosopher who has influenced society as much as she has, even if she didn't dramatically affect philosophical thought

>> No.4867051

>>4867032

Explain.

>> No.4867057

>>4867032
dude what not having an effect on philosophical thought more or less confirms that she was a shit tier philosoper at best and >implying influencing society is the mark of a philosopher anymore bahaha thats for celebrities

>> No.4867063

Influential: Wittgenstein

Important: Heidegger

>> No.4867064

>>4867051
She was the pronator of second-wave feminism

>>4867057
>braksis iz 4 blebs :DDDDD

>> No.4867066

>>4867064
>proginator

>> No.4867089 [SPOILER] 
File: 79 KB, 350x218, 1399539602702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4867089

Derrida

>> No.4867148

>>4867032
Rawls? Dewey? Strauss (for neoconservatism)? Habermas?

>> No.4867162

who was the most edgy philosopher of the 20th century

>> No.4867185

>>4867162
Otto Weininger

>> No.4867186

>>4867162

1. Baudrillard
2. Foucault

>> No.4867196

>>4867162
quine

>> No.4867203

>>4867148
I'm not sure anything they've done that compares with the radical social restructuring of second-wave feminism.

>> No.4867211

>>4867203

I live in a low class desert town in California that desperately needs this "restructuring" you're talking about

from the safety of ivory towers it's fun to talk about the past as if feminism was a success

but get an hour away from any major cities/universities and it is as if nothing has changed because most people don't even read

>> No.4867230

>>4867211
I don't know, I think making marital rape illegal and abortion legal, were pretty fuckin big changes

>> No.4867235

>>4867230

are a couple legislative changes what you consider "restructuring"?

>> No.4867238

>>4866808
>wittgenstein or maybe heidegger
Honesly I've never heard of them before coming to /lit/. Foucalt on the other hand is way more known even among plebs.

>> No.4867239

How does this thread(purely posturing) get more replies than this thread(genuine philosophy discussion): >>4866471

>> No.4867243

>>4867235
They're just some objective examples. The socio-cultural difference between this society and 1950's, in regards to the role and limitations of womanhood, is enormous.

>> No.4867245

>>4867238


?????????????

>> No.4867246

>>4867239
I don't find Hume interesting. It's probably the only part of my lectures on political ideas than I will not devote any minute on.

>> No.4867248

>>4867243

this as in the one I encounter on a daily basis? how confidently do you make that claim?

again, it's certainly nice & easy to make that assertion from a safe distance

>> No.4867251

>>4865186
Me

>> No.4867253

>>4867239
because hume was a fucking idiot

>u cannot know nuffin'

>> No.4867254

>>4867248
How women dress, how quickly you're expected to have sex with them in a relationship, how expected it is for you to pay for shit--the amount of women you run into at work, especially in positions of management.

>> No.4867256

>>4867246
>political ideas
um.. anon
>4867253
good post

man, didn't think i'd say this but where the fuck is stan right now?

>> No.4867257

>>4865186
influential ? easily bergson

>> No.4867259

>>4867254
hey i have a question that i'm pretty embarrassed to ask but should i as male be offering to pay for women on dates?
please more than a one word answer, i need to understand

>> No.4867260

>>4865213
most people think you're trolling but she's definitely influential. even more so than sartre.

>> No.4867261

>>4867259
Am I your Lord?

>> No.4867263

>>4867259
ask her

>> No.4867264

>>4867261
you don't have to be for me to value your opinion, please be ncie

>> No.4867267

>>4867260
She and Sartre were pretty much on the same page philosophically--no doubt she got a lot of her thinking from him. Her application of it definitely had radically repercussions tho

>> No.4867268

>>4867203
>radical social restructuring of second-wave feminism

You sound like /pol/, feminism is not as influential as you think it is.

>> No.4867270

>>4867263
i fear how that would make me seem though and i don't want to give a long preamble beforehand as i'm wont to do

>> No.4867273
File: 603 KB, 1017x1425, values.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4867273

>>4867264
Then my opinion is this: do what thou wilt. If it pleases you to offer, then you should offer. If it does not, then do not.

>> No.4867275

>>4867273
thank you, i'll drug her and tie her to my bed post

>> No.4867278

>>4867275
You should probably at least pay for the meal if you're going to go that far.

>> No.4867285

>>4867278
H*CK!

>> No.4867288 [DELETED] 

Feminister I want to read one of your books please :(

I swear I'm nice guy never dox

>> No.4867290 [DELETED] 

>>4867288
I will even pay for it, lol.

>> No.4867292 [DELETED] 

I don't want to pay for it, though.

>> No.4867293 [DELETED] 

>>4867288
I will never disclose a single detail here that would permit the discovery of my identity. You find out who I am, other find out, I will have to deal with a lot of shit that I just don't want to deal with.

However I take your interest as a compliment and you have my appreciation, anon <3

>> No.4867296 [DELETED] 

>>4867293
My name is Sean <3

>> No.4867298 [DELETED] 

>>4867296
Are you that Irishman?

>> No.4867304 [DELETED] 

>>4867298
No, I hate that guy.

>> No.4867306 [DELETED] 

>>4867304
whyyyyyyyyyyyy

>> No.4867308 [DELETED] 

>>4867306
I get the feeling he's very handsome, much more handsome than me.

>> No.4867313 [DELETED] 

>>4867273
>mfw raping then murdering you and justifying it with those values

egoists are fucking hilariously sheltered people

>> No.4867331 [DELETED] 

>>4867308
Wait, wait... what if I am the Irishman?

>> No.4867342

Albert Camus

>> No.4867362

You need to be more specific because people like lenin, mao or one of the people behind neo-liberal thought would probably be the most influential if you simply looked at social change even if none of their thoughts were particularity influential to philosophical thought itself.

>> No.4867372 [DELETED] 

>>4867331
Then you're having a bad day

>> No.4867391 [DELETED] 

>>4867372
Haha

>> No.4867402

>>4866726
Sam Harris is the new Ayn Rand for /lit/. Sam Harris should be wordfiltered into Donald Duck.

>> No.4867413

>>4865186
adolf hitler
>led to ww2
enough said

>> No.4867438

>>4867413
hurrr

>> No.4867450

>>4867402
Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven't done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.

>> No.4867453

>>4867413
Mussolini was better, but Hitler was such a dick that he made Musso stupid
Hitler was Moe to Musso's Curly. Curly is a complete genius and if left to his own devices accomplishes great things, but Moe's strong will overpowers him and causes him to be a useless twat like Moe.
Hitler was SHIT

>> No.4867454

>>4866726
Right and wrong don't exist.

Neither free will nor determinism are so, because the future does not exist.

>> No.4867457
File: 39 KB, 500x257, sam_harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4867457

>>4867450
This is just a reminder that while philosophy seems to care a great deal about Mr. Harris, this isn't a reciprocal relationship.

>> No.4867474 [DELETED] 

>>4867454
Feminister, hi :----)))))

>> No.4867487 [DELETED] 

>>4867457
That fuckin Jew. I know a Jew kid that's all over his sack. Fuckin asshole, that guy. Of all the things to decide are great, he picks fucking shitty capitalism

>> No.4867520 [DELETED] 

>>4867474
lick lips touch

>> No.4867526

>>4867454
I've seen you have considerations of right and wrong, though, Feminister.

>> No.4867530

>>4867526
As preference, the same as with food

>> No.4867532 [DELETED] 

>>4867520
So are you more Feminister than other people, or are you one who Feminists? Or is it some PoMo shit and it means both because who cares?

>> No.4867539 [DELETED] 

>>4867530
Do you like pork?

>> No.4867540 [DELETED] 

>>4867532
Plus a female minister :p

>> No.4867542 [DELETED] 

>>4867539
Fuck yes

>> No.4867547 [DELETED] 

>>4867542
Haha, yeah. Is your writing very snarky, Feminister?

>> No.4867550

>>4865186
There were no important or influential authors in the 20th century

>> No.4867554 [DELETED] 

>>4867547
Yes

>> No.4867557 [DELETED] 

>>4867554
I'd really like to read something of it.

>> No.4867564

There's an approved list, don't get out of your lane.

>> No.4867567 [DELETED] 

>>4867557
I imagine that you imagine me writing something and in it there is a little girl harassed by many little boys, and one of those little boys finds where the little girl lives and who she is and all about her books and she is forced to cope with that for the rest of her career.

>> No.4867580 [DELETED] 

>>4867540
Omg, I called it, I had you down as a hipster nun
I picture you standing there in a torn up habit with a band shirt underneath, a bunch of beads that resemble a rosary but mean nothing, and you cling to books as the last holy thing left for you in a world that otherwise means the same nothing as the rosary you pray with for a future more to your liking

You're the devil, and I fear you'd kill us all given the chance

>> No.4867586

>>4867567
No, not at all, lol. I was actually just reading through Joyce's Dubliners there --I dunno, thinking my own writing wasn't up to scratch, but what I found instead is that I'm just a terrible bastard with no aim, no end to my onslaught, lol. It's kinda like having writer's block, only it's not having writer's block, but that it's pointlessness, basically, and I can't get over it. I imagine you write with a pretty prose (or whatever) that's reward in itself --egotism, lol.

>> No.4867588 [DELETED] 

>>4867567
>femetaster

>> No.4867591 [DELETED] 

>>4867580
Then it clearly wouldn't be a chance

>> No.4867596

>>4867586
There's on beautiful scene I have in mind, and I can just paint the picture I guess, like I imagine you do, but I haven't the words nor the structuring and it's hard to find patience or point to correct that. I fucking hate Christianity, lol. I have two good qualifications and they keep nagging at me to quit it, though there's another compulsion pushing the other way, neither will give... And so I ask.

>> No.4867597

>>4867586
Egoism, certainly. Egotism, not so much.

I don't like pre-planned ends, they cramp my style.

>>4867588
>:D

>> No.4867600 [DELETED] 

>>4867596
Paint a picture of you painting a picture of you painting a picture of me

>> No.4867606 [DELETED] 

>>4867591
Sure it would, getting rid of people would get rid of unsocialist behaviour, wouldn't it? And that's what matters in the end. You fucking cunt.
I need a socialist friend, can you be that friend? All the socialists I know are gay guys or dipshit punk retards that mostly don't even read and seem to be the most contradictory persons. Your shit seems fleshed out at least

>> No.4867607

>>4867597
Oh, egoism, that's what I meant. And I don't like pre-planned ends either, I don't think, more so it's a need of being right, having an ace in the hole, lol. And I don't. I'll be a cranky old bastard like Vonnegut someday.

>> No.4867608 [DELETED] 

>>4867606
I suppose so

>> No.4867611 [DELETED] 

>>4867600
That's hot.

>> No.4867617

>>4867607
It's like there's no possible hero, not really, and so the story goes nowhere, it's just antagonisation for antagonisation's sake.

>> No.4867630 [DELETED] 

>>4867608
Okay, so what do you think of creating an environment where fascist people, monarchists, general gangsters and the like can exist and kill each other and love life, but at the same time socialist/anarcho-communist/whatever-minded people can live their lifestyle and love everything and be there and live without the influence of fascists, and a third way where they can coexist and be friends? All on one planet

>> No.4867634

>>4867617
I could just leave it up in the air, I guess, smart young punk that I am now, lol. Go on, show me your writing, Feminister.

>> No.4867645

>>4867634
Sorry, lol.

>> No.4867824 [DELETED] 

>>4867611
Then I guess I'd be (in)appropriately dressed

>>4867630
That doesn't make any sense. Fascists and monarchists are killing people but sparing socialists because why? Monarchists and fascists hate socialists even more than they hate each other.

>> No.4867870

>>4866871

You're on the right track, friend, but if you're ever to further cultivate your wisdom, you must learn to accept that analysing objective relations between subjective referents is an inevitable facet of human discourse, but in itself is by no means reason to abandon human discourse altogether. The logical conclusion of your argument would be to cease to try and communicate through language ever again; and yet here you are, asserting propositions. Understanding subjectivity of language should teach you caution; not nihilism. There is precise, subtle, beautiful reasoning, and there is blunt, heavy-handed, fallacious reasoning-- as philosophers, it is our task to manifest the former and to eradicate the latter.

>> No.4867981

>>4867253
i hope you don't think you are correct
mademereply/10

>> No.4868065

>>4866948
No.

>> No.4868075

>>4867457
Philosophers don't care about Harris any more than they care about Rand.

>> No.4868080

>>4867402
>Sam Harris is the new Ayn Rand for /lit/. Sam Harris should be wordfiltered into Donald Duck.
Please make this happen.

>> No.4868136

>>4868075
Fairy story.

>> No.4868143

>>4865186
Not that kyke

>> No.4868148

>>4867162
Rorty
Gettier

>> No.4868181
File: 163 KB, 1441x933, Deleuze.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868181

"One day, perhaps, this century will be called Deleuzian" -- Foucault

>> No.4868211

>>4868143
You should very it up man. There are so many words beyond kike. Shylock, sheeny, hebe, yid, shekel-devil, noseberg etc

>> No.4868218

>>4868211
Vary*