[ 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: 108 KB, 640x500, 6505135071_7559ba94dd_z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5027037 No.5027037[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Who do you think most would consider the greatest/most important philosopher of the 20th century? IMO it's between Wittgenstein and Russell.

>> No.5027039
File: 209 KB, 791x1024, RealHumanBeingandTIme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5027039

>> No.5027040

>>5027037
sarte
/thread

>> No.5027052

I like Wittgenstein a lot. Ive read:

Tractatus,
Lecture on Ethics,
Part of 'Notebooks',
Philosophical Remarks,
Philosophical Grammar,
Lectures on the foundations of Mathematics,
Culture and Values,
Philosophical Investigations,
Lectures on Aesthetics,
On Certainty,

by Wittgenstein.

I like Russell too. I dont think Russell was really right about anything though. He just had interesting things to say. Philosophy is a unique field where one can be completely wrong and still make a significant contribution to the field.

I have read basically nothing from Heidegger. But It seems to me that in order to really do philosophy today one must have read Wittgenstein or Heideggar.

>> No.5027069

Aloys Schicklgruber

>> No.5027074

>>5027040
Hahaha nope

>> No.5027079

a woman

>> No.5027082

camus

>> No.5027084

In terms of social influence, then undoubtedly de Beauvoir. In terms of academic influence, Sartre or Foucault.

>> No.5027086

>implying sartre or foucault are even philosophers.

what the fuck are you euros doing

>> No.5027088

>>5027086

This

>> No.5027090

>>5027086
>I don't like them so they aren't philosophers because I'm a dumb cunt that thinks the label 'philosopher' carries weight

>> No.5027092

>>5027086
Maybe not speculative philosophers.

>> No.5027095

>>5027084
Holy shit how can someone be wrong on so many levels?

Sartre? Really? Really?

The answer is always Heidegger. Academic, cultural, social, aesthetics--Heidegger.

He's the little squat devilish smile greeting you at the end of all philosophizing, waiting for you to start actually thinking.

>> No.5027099

Well I would say Heidegger but he was a Nazi so probably Camus

>> No.5027104

>>5027095
He came a little late to the game to be championing metaphysics.

>> No.5027108

>>5027092
>Foucault
>not speculative

Oh wow. Most of his historical claims have been heavily criticized as speculation that regularly disregarded material that ran counter to his speculation.

>> No.5027113
File: 5 KB, 189x267, camus 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5027113

the one and only

>> No.5027117

>>5027108
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculative%20philosophy

>> No.5027118

>>5027104
>Heidegger
>championing metaphysics

Wow, the shitposting just keeps flowing. Never mind that Heidegger's original vision for Being and Time was the existential analytic that was published and the planned destruktion (deconstruction/destruction) of Western Metaphysics. Or his critique of Nietzsche for failing to complete metaphysics and merely inverting it.

Please read some Heidegger immediately. You run around his little muddied paths without realizing he's already tread them many times.

>> No.5027120

Camus!

>> No.5027122

>>5027117
>that's powerful

>> No.5027133

OP here. So it seems like Camus was definitely the most important philosopher of the 20th century

>> No.5027135

>>5027090
Sartre's Nausea is a badly done Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge and Being and Nothingness is founded on an awful reading of Heidegger.

Foucault's historical methodology has come under intense criticism which is pretty damning considering his method is essentially one of historical genealogy.

>> No.5027141

>>5027133
You better believe it

>> No.5027144

Gilles motherfucking Deleuze

>> No.5027145

George Carlin

>> No.5027146

>>5027122
Was Foucault speculating in the sense of a classic metaphysician? No.

Was Foucault speculating in the sense of an awful historian/genealogist? Yes.

It boggles the mind how someone can cling so deeply to Foucault and Sartre (and by extension de Beauvoir) and not even pick up Being and Time. Just goes to show the degree to which posturing channels thought.

>> No.5027150

>>5027146
It sounds dramatic, but I think it's being over-stated.

>> No.5027167

>>5027118
I'll get around to it, but his distinction of Dasein as some special existence is metaphysical in my opinion.

>> No.5027171

>>5027167
>metaphysics is an opinion

no, really?

>> No.5027173

>>5027146
I don't really cling to any of them, since I'm not an existentialist.

>> No.5027176

>>5027171
Yes. There's no firm psychological of physical basis for that, it's theology.

>> No.5027179

>>5027176
no, really?

>> No.5027182

>>5027176
>or

>> No.5027189

>>5027179
:DDDDDDDDDD

>> No.5027190

my god.

>> No.5027192

>>5027176
You dont Actually understand the concepts yo are using dont you?

>> No.5027193

daily reminder existentialism is not a philosophy its a movement

>> No.5027194

>>5027192
I imagine I do, otherwise you would have given a better response the Derrida-defense.

>> No.5027206

>>5027167
It's really inexcusable to read the philosophy in the vein of Sartre and ignore Being and Time because it triggers your metaphysics autism.

The formulation of Dasein is a reaction to the model of the subject as posited by classic metaphysics.

>>5027176
Your materialism hasn't escaped metaphysics. It's a dressed up Democritus.

>> No.5027217

>>5027189
>metaphysics isn't physics

The depth of some people's knowledge is something else.

>> No.5027222

>>5027206
I've only read a couple of works by Sartre, mostly to understand Beauvoir better. He's not my cup of tea.

I understand what it's a reaction to, but it hasn't reached escape velocity in regard to detaching itself from the absurd habit of abstracting being from reality.

>Your materialism hasn't escaped metaphysics. It's a dressed up Democritus.

I'm not properly speaking a materialist except in relation to human ideas. There's an underlying mathematical structure (which Kant pointed out with glee).

>> No.5027227

>>5027222
math is philosophy

>> No.5027228

>>5027227
Call it whatever you want, but outside of mathematics there has not been any headway in discovering an immutable extra-material structure over the last three thousand years.

>> No.5027229

>>5027228
>fundamentals don't matter

yup

>> No.5027230

>>5027229
I didn't say they didn't, I said they haven't been discovered outside of mathematics.

>> No.5027232

>>5027095
> Sartre? Really? Really?
Yeah, Sartre is one of the more notable ones. And not even for his own philosophy, but for his merits a translators: his translation of Phenomelogy of Spirit had a MASSIVE effect in French philosophy, introducing Hegel to them. Given that most if not all continental philosophy of latter 20th century can be considered footnotes and remarks on Hegel, Sartre is one of the biggest.

Some other philosophers you ignore /lit/ include Freud, whose influence on 20th century one cannot cast away, Antonio Gramsci, the forefather of Post-Marxism and Eurocommunism and Derrida, the man who nobody has understood so far.

>> No.5027235

>>5027222
>I understand what it's a reaction to, but it hasn't reached escape velocity in regard to detaching itself from the absurd habit of abstracting being from reality.

You haven't even read it and you're denouncing it. Seriously?

If you would have read it, you would have known that Dasein is for Heidegger an attempt to understand existence in a manner that isn't tied to the abstract thinking subject. You would have known that Heidegger begins his project with those things closest to us (to "reality) and transforms the subject from a thinking, separate abstract/abstracting self to Dasein which can only be understood as enmeshed in the world, in the network of relations, in the activity it engages in.

Some of Heidegger's existential analytic of Dasein is so concerned with "reality" that you would be forgiven if you just glossed over it by it because it was being too "obvious" in its practical concern with reality.

>> No.5027238

>>5027232
Yep. Although Frued's influence is dissipating

>> No.5027239

>>5027230
mathematics give you the best illusion of success

>> No.5027240

>>5027238
It already did. Mental health is Jung now.

>> No.5027256

Sam Harris

>> No.5027266

>>5027235
The thing is, he posits beings as being "in the world". Beings are arbitrary demarcated components of reality, not things which exist independent "in" reality (even though interface with reality is part of the definition of Dasein)

>> No.5027273

>>5027240
Pfft, this was about Philosophical influence, not psychological.

>> No.5027277

>>5027273
Despite "math" they're not totally separate-able from each other.

>> No.5027279

Are there any noteworthy conservative philosophers? I have minor in philosophy, but it was rather focused on justice theory with strong liberal undertones. Conservative philosophers were not touched at all. I'd be intrested to see world outside of Frankfurt School and liberalism.

I'd say Karl Marx was the most influential. He spawned the Frankfurt School of thought which is where cultural marxism was born, along with all the related things like equal consideration, post-modern feminism, multiculturalism and social justice theory.

Robert Nozick comes close second. He single-handedly established justification for extreme libertarianism, arguing successfully in syllogism that property rights are most important rights human can have.

>> No.5027302

>>5027266
You're misunderstanding without even reading. In-der-Welt-sein is not beings that just happen to be in a world. You're projecting subject/object onto Dasein (which is why Heidegger stopped using it in his later writings). There isn't a simple being + world relationship here. Being is IN the world, is enmeshed in it and cannot be ripped apart and abstracted from it. We don't just "interface" with reality. That's not what he's saying at all.

Just read Being and Time and Heidegger in general. Maybe you'll see just how stuck in metaphysics you still are.

>> No.5027409

>>5027279
>successfully
>nozick
pls

>> No.5027412

>>5027133
Not OP

>> No.5027445
File: 34 KB, 487x604, davidlewis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5027445

>patrician choice

>> No.5027454

>>5027279
Heidegger, that american teologist whom I forget the name of, Evola, Guenon, Charles Murray, Mircha Eliade. Just google traditionalism. Eventually every philisopher is going to be in the conservative spectre, since times change.

>> No.5027464

>>5027409
1) If I own myself I also own all the skills I have
2) If I own all my skills I also own everything acquired with those skills
3) I own myself

Debunk.

>> No.5027496

I feel like camus just took the idea of nothingness and reduced it to a single emotional response unique to him without really communicating it effectively.

Although it's been a long time since I read him.

>> No.5027499

>>5027445
>hailing ugly people

>> No.5027542

>>5027464
You want him debunk a semantically obscure argument?

I can only imagine what goes through onionring's head upon his as-of-late visits of /lit/ as it is today.

All stripes of anti-intellectuals that are merely fanatics, and nothing else, of some movement but are far too intellectually lazy or inept to actually engage the movement itself. OP's -- and as a matter of fact the majority of posts ITT -- clumsy, dimwit post literally exemplifies this.

>> No.5027849

>>5027464
well that's a pretty bad argument even granting the self ownership scheme.

problme with nozick's thing is that ownership itself is the most interesting phenomenon/form of human action and he takes it as a sort of primitive. now, this sort of thing might make sense to monkeys fighting over a tree or humans fighting over sovereign and exclusive interest control over some stuff, but we should recognize this arrangement as merely a built in notion at best, and that does not mean justified.

>> No.5027908

>>5027849
>we should recognize this arrangement as merely a built in notion at best, and that does not mean justified.

>fails to recognize that any justification given for the notion would itself be unjustified since everyone takes the primitive notions of logic as primitive

>> No.5027977

>>5027037
>would be a more productive thread if it was most____ Analytic/Anglo-Amer/Empiricist.
Quine, Witt. is arguably Continental. "Influential" is problematic (if this were a Cont. thread, Derrida would be in contention, apart from his merit alone)

>> No.5028049

Camus was not a philosopher you fucking cunts

There is no philosophical substance contained in his entire corpus. I do not mean to say this as a criticism: he is actually not a philosopher, nor are his questions metaphysical questions. To call him a philosopher is to not understand him.

>> No.5028058

>>5027040
lol

>>5027082
lol

>>5027084
lol

>>5027099
lol

>>5027104
lol

>>5027113
lol

>>5027120
lol

>>5027133
lol

>>5027135
lol

>>5027144
lol

>>5027146
lol

>>5027167
lol

By the way, your horrendous faggots, Camus is an author and a playwright, not a philosopher.

>> No.5028682

>>5028049
And you understand him so well?

>There is no philosophical substance contained in his entire corpus.

What is absurdism?

Honestly, I would say Camus as well, with Wittgenstein as a close second.

>> No.5028684

>>5028682
If absurdism is, then why humanism?

Why the others? Why revolt?

just asking man, this is something that has been fucking with me for so long

>> No.5028727

>>5028684
I see revolt as being a certain propensity towards challenging our own death by living to our fullest and spiting death through life.

As for humanism, I have no clue. I could give my own reasons, but I don't think Camus really had an answer for that.

>"If the world were clear, art would not exist."

>> No.5028739
File: 325 KB, 1809x1357, 1402427835462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5028739

>>5027228


>there has not been any headway in discovering an immutable extra-material structure over the last three thousand years.

A dualist plato scholar philosophy professor and designer of hydroelectric power stations was teaching a class on René Descartes, known metaphysician ”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Descartes and accept that his "cogito ergo sum" is the most self-evident idea in the history of humanity, even more evident than "panta rei"!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, deep ecologist heideggerian traditional farmer who had written over 1500 papers on the ontological difference and understood the necessity of a new german beggining for western philosophy and fully supported all hermeutization of ontology spoke:

”What is that by terms of which this rock can be said to exist, pinhead?”-he said in a 19th century rural dialect of german

The arrogant professor smirked quite modernly and smugly replied “matter, you stupid postmodernist”

”Wrong. Matter is just an a posteriori theoretical understanding of reality. If its Being, as you say, is a metaphysical substance… then its Being is a being ”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Discourse on the Method. He stormed out of the room crying those dualist crocodile tears. The same tears modernists cry for the “res cogitans” when they jealously try to claw wonder from the world by making it an standing-reserve of resources. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Aristotle Spinoza, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than an inauthentic nihilist. He wished so much that he could experience aletheia, but he himself had created metaphysical cages that prevented Being from showing itself!

The students applauded and all enroled in the university of Freiburg that day and accepted historicity and finitudeas the defining characteristics of human existance. An eagle named “Ereignis” flew into the room and perched atop the portrait of Friederich Nietzsche and shed a tear on the chalk. Sein und Zeit was read several times, and Being itself was disclosed and propagated authenticity and existential dread throughout the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died after being ran over by a motorized fleet of agricultural machinery and nothing happened to him after that because being-towards-death is a condition of possibility for experience.

>> No.5028740

>>5028727
I can say fuck humanism and still revolt, alone. Why the others? Why the others, Camus, why not just you, your beauty, your marvelous prose and this world, fighting against each other, for nothing but the sake of fighting? Would you not grab the commendatore's hand? Then why grab it for the others?

>> No.5028744

>Camus is not a philosopher
>being this much of a pedantic cunt

>> No.5028763
File: 39 KB, 1059x239, 1 - absurdism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5028763

>>5028744

>> No.5028770

Nietzche wasn't the greatest philosopher in the 20th century, but he had the biggest influence I think.

>> No.5028777

Alfred Jarry and Aleister Crowley

>> No.5028804

>>5027079
The only one I can think of as contender for the best is Hannah Arendt.

>> No.5028819

>>5028682
Wittgenstein edging out Lewis.

>> No.5028850

>>5028058
>Camus is an author and a playwright, not a philosopher.
By that logic Sartre wasn't a philosopher.
Protip: he wasn't.

>> No.5028857

by impact to world as a whole? Wittgenstein.

>> No.5028863

Witty, ofc :^)

>> No.5028867

>>5028857

not sure if this is an ignorant post or 10/10 metahumor

>> No.5028873

>>5028857
>world as a whole
In what way?

>> No.5028883

>>5028867
oh I was merely thinking between R and W.
I didnt consider others.

>>5028873
At least to my world jurisprudence

>> No.5028917

It's funny because Wittgenstein would say it was him and that Russell was out of his mind and Russell would say it was him and Wittgenstein was out of his mind.

>> No.5028940

>>5027079
>woman
>most important anything
People like Jane Addams and Simone de Beauvoir ruined the 21st century. Philosophers are bad because they have no fucking clue what they're actually doing to the culture. Their words have never brought positive change. Civilization continues DESPITE their best efforts.

>> No.5028947

>>5028940
One of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century was a woman.

>> No.5028961

>>5028947
false lies and misogony on your part

>> No.5028964

>>5028961
lel

>> No.5028969

>>5027037
>Russell
>ever

>> No.5028971

>>5028961
What in the world is that supposed to mean? Have you even studied mathematics?

>> No.5028980

>>5028971
What is false lie?

>> No.5028984

Deleuze
Foucault
Heidegger

>> No.5028986

>>5028917
It's funnier that they would both be correct.

>> No.5028990

>>5028980
"False" is an intensifier in this context.

>> No.5028998

>>5028990
In your context not mine dont tell me what I mean with my words

>> No.5029003

>>5028998
"False lie" is not a double negative, but a redundancy. Simple logic.

>> No.5029004

>>5028763
o camoo got so pwnt Xd

>> No.5029016

>>5029003
Your mothers a redundancy :vP

>> No.5029022

>20th century philosophers
>not shills for politics

lol

>> No.5029030

>>5028917
Didn't Russell concede that Wittgenstein had surpassed him and/or that Russell just gave up?

>> No.5029038

>>5029022
>Wittgenstein
>political shill

u wot m8

>> No.5029040

>>5027908
are you putting 'self ownership' on the same level as logic? hello?

>> No.5029049

Fuck there's a lot of pomos on /lit/

>> No.5030528

kripke or quine

>> No.5030778

>>5029030
Russell thought that Wittgenstein could solve the problems he himself was incapable of solving, but Russell viewed Wittgenstein's later work as a sort of renunciation of his genius.

>> No.5030798

>>5027464
Objection #1: Depending on your definition of "own," various ethical/metaphysical positions could lead to the rejection of (3).

Objection #2: What does "acquired" mean here? Like, if I step on land, have I "acquired" it? Do I have to fight someone over it to have "acquired" it? Because the way I envision acquisition working, you've "acquired" something when you own it, which would make (2) pretty meaningless (I own everything I own).

Objection #3: What your argument, if correct, would prove is that you own everything you have acquired (which, if we are assuming your argument is correct, somehow means something other than "come to own") with your 'skills.' It wouldn't demonstrate the importance of ownership rights.

>> No.5030812

>>5028739
Enjoyable.

>> No.5030846

>>5028739
9.5/10

>> No.5030856 [DELETED] 

>>5027037
>IMO it's between Wittgenstein and Russell

They weren't philosophers, they were clumsy thinkers and analytic autists.

>> No.5030863

>>5028058
>Camus is an author and a playwright, not a philosopher.

it's usually authors and playwrights who end up doing philosophy that matters, while self-proclaimed philosophers like Wittgenstein and Russel waste their time with linguistics or set theory, boring analytical shit that says very little about life.

Beckett and Camus are legit philosophers. Hell Melville might've been the best 20th century philosopher we've had.

>> No.5030867

>>5030863
>Hell Melville might've been the best 20th century philosopher we've had.

And he wasn't even born in the 20th century, that's how good he was!

>> No.5030874

>>5028947
who?

>> No.5030884

Russell was dumb as fuck. Wittgeinstein just had severe OCD. Look at all you losers. Have you even read a single philosopher's entire discography. yeah that's right I call them discographies. Suck my huge Quinean dick.

>> No.5030888

It's funny how people can't see the difference between most important and best, so this thread has quiclçy turned into a shitty pissing contest of "my favorite philosopher is better than yours!"
Op's to blame, though. Formulate your fucking questions in a more precise way, for fucks sake

>> No.5032382

>>5030888
To be fair, OP did ask "who do you think MOST would consider..." but everyone ignored that part.

>> No.5032494

>>5027176
Have you seen the current state of both continental and analytic philosophy? Metaphysics isn't a dirty word anymore.

>> No.5033443

>>5032494
This is true - and evidence that Western culture is in regression. We have peaked and we are getting more stupid.

>> No.5033460

Freud v Heidegger.

>> No.5033662

who would Most people consider? Russell
who actually is? Wittgenstein deal with it. Witty was a genus

>> No.5033669
File: 178 KB, 1190x906, 1348106348649.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5033669

>>5033460
>Freud
>not just a crazy man obsessed with pee pee's

>> No.5033678

>Camus
Should I have some tea, or rather, some coffee?

>> No.5033704

>>5033669
>Freud
>not the author of the Hegelian-Marxist topography of your mind's economy
Pls he's so deep in the system of Western values it would take some genuine neurosis to miss it and prove his theory of the subconscious.

>> No.5033798

Wittgenstein.
Though I believe that in the preface of Tractatus he states a great truth. If the thoughts expressed there hasn't ever occured to one before reading it, chances are quite slim that you'll fully understand what he's trying to achieve.

I think many fail to see the strong points of Wittgenstein when comparing to Russel. He once said that to philosophize is to eliminate inaccurate reasoning. Seemingly simple, if put like that. But Wittgenstein truly finds, and only really cares about that which is essential. This approach and how he applies it to his work is one of the remarkable things about him.

>> No.5033803

>>5033704
Getting to an accurate conclusion by coincidence through the use of retarded theories that are completely 100% wrong is not impressive.

>> No.5033826

>>5033803
The impact of it is. And I'm reasonably sure you've only read about Freud, rather than read Freud. His truthiness is what made him the background noise of the whole last century.

>> No.5033839

I don't think it's really accurate to call Freud a philosopher - he created a whole new discipline which isn't merely a subset of philosophy, just as the natural sciences branched out from philosophy. The reason Freud's influence is no longer obvious is because it's so all-pervasive (albeit usually bastardized by popularizers like Jung or the ego-psychologists) that we don't even realize we're thinking in a Freudian paradigm.

Greatest 'philosopher' would have to be Wittgenstein, but I think that Foucault is the most influential, for better or for worse, because his influence filters through into education, sociology, etc.

>> No.5034829

I'm a psychoanalist but I wouldn't consider Freud or Lacan to be philosopher. Philosophy, however, is very related to psychoanalysis.

And to answer the question, from my psychoanalytic point of view:

Nietzche, Heidegger, Hegel and Schopenhauer.

>> No.5035697

>>5028777
>Alfred Jarry
trips for truth

>> No.5035778

>>5027037

Some site ran a survey for the most 'important' philosopher of the last 200 years, it went Vicky>Frege>Russell IIRC.

Don't really get the Russell part, but the result suggests Ludders would win.

>> No.5035815

There is no contest, OP, it's Alfred Korzybski.

>> No.5035887

>>5035778
Vicky?

>> No.5035893

>>5035887

"The Clements had two daughters, Joan, aged eleven, and Barbara, aged nine, and while he was staying there Wittgenstein was treated almost as part of the family. Finding the name 'Wittgenstein' something of a mouthful, they all called him 'Vicky', although it was made clear that they were the only people allowed to do so."

>> No.5035979

>>5035893
I have just started reading Ray Monks duty of a genius. Is that from the book?

>> No.5035989

>>5035979

Yeah, quite a ways in, though. The index should have an entry for 'Clement' if you want to skip ahead (there's some fun stuff, but nothing crucial).

>> No.5036018

>Who do you think most would consider the greatest/most important philosopher of the 20th century? IMO it's between a repressed homosexual who was the student of a giganazi and a man who's lifework was destroyed in a single paper by an austrian who starved to death after his wife couldn't make him food

>> No.5036036

>>5036018
>the student of a giganazi

Eh?

>> No.5036041

>>5036036

Ooooh, you mean Frege. Dunno if I'd call Wittgenstein his 'student' as such, also seems like a bit of a stretch as a criticism of him. Even ignoring its ad hominem nature.

>> No.5036043

>>5036036
Posthumously it was discovered that Frege was a colossal anti-semite, to an extent that it makes Heidegger look like David Ben-Gurion

>> No.5037115

Culturally freud but academically Heidegger and Wittgenstein.

>> No.5037125
File: 194 KB, 700x436, 1364909569210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5037125

Everybody knows it, but few will admit it

>> No.5037136

>>5036043
Was Heidegger an actual anti-semite, or is that just assumed because of his [later-recanted] endorsement of National Socialism?

>> No.5037156

>>5027144
If you think Deleuze is the best philosopher of ANY epoch, you've been staring too long at the solar anus.

>> No.5037204

>>5037156

You sound philosophically butthurt.

>> No.5037246

>>5037125
Her "philosophy" is objectively awful. Even the best parts are stated by others more elegantly and with better reasoning. I don't see how anyone can respect Rand when someone like Nozick exists.

>> No.5038966
File: 134 KB, 600x748, true artist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5038966

Would you get information on medicine from baristas?

Would you get information on Philosophy from english majors?

>> No.5039002

> greatest/most important philosopher of the 20th century

What the fuck is this, a Time magazine article?

>> No.5039006

>>5037125

troll

>>5037246

>objectively awful

hehe i get it

>> No.5039499
File: 22 KB, 212x270, Kurt_g%C3%B6del[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5039499

>>5027037

>what say you.
>how Russel got his shit pushed in by my incompleteness therum
>oh and Wittgenstein was super gay
>nothing wrong with that
>also one of only a few philosophers to see battle
>nobody dumps all over your ideas about truth in mathematics like Kurt Godel.

>> No.5039506

It depends on what branch of philosophy.

In epistemiology I would say Foucault, for instance.

>> No.5039515

>>5039506
epistemology*

>> No.5040216
File: 173 KB, 780x600, 1363743511508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5040216

I havent read much of 20th century philosophy, but Heidegger's Being and Time is really great. Especially if youve read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Aristotle in general.

I mean just his method alone, and the absolute focus he spent on being self-aware while writing is inspiring.

I have a feeling Ill like Wittgenstein and other analytics once I get to them.

>> No.5040225

>>5039506
could you explain yourself? i don't know much about foucault and epistemology

>> No.5040523

>>5040225

Hell yes, I could talk about Foucault for hours my, doctorate thesis is based on his Archeology.

Foucault studies the historical relation between Power and "knowledge". Knowledge grants power (think of how we often say that some people are "authorities" on certain subject). This knowledge-power relation was very important in the development of human sciences.

He also has a very interesting book about the history of madness. Mad people were first conceived as victims, then as sinners (that's why sanatoriums were so cruel), and finally as ill-men who needed care.

>> No.5040529

>>5040523
What philosophy is prior knowledge of necessary to read Foucault?

>> No.5040530

>>5040529
Fuck all.

>> No.5040543

>This fucking thread.
I can't stop laughing /lit/. If not for the discussion, at least for the laughs.