[ 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: 163 KB, 377x398, this fucking faggot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5065975 No.5065975 [Reply] [Original]

Who's your least favorite philosopher? For me, I'd say this asshole.

>> No.5065994

>>5065975
>favorite philosophers

I fucking cringe every time I see a thread like this.

>> No.5065997

>>5065994
>least

>> No.5066958

not even a philosopher but yea china's state philosopher stuff is about as bad as hitler

>> No.5066963

Basically I find all Eastern Philosophy boring as fuck. So, all of the philosophers associated with the eastern tradition are my "least favorite."

>> No.5066971

>>5065997
least implies an ordering in which there is a most

>> No.5066973

>>5066971
You can't into order theory apparently.

>> No.5066976

>>5066971
Fuck off kid, he doesn't want to know what is on the higher level. Just the lower level.

>> No.5066977

> reading philosophy


You only see autistic people read that. I have a nietzsche book, a kierkkagardde book and they are both boring.

>> No.5066978

>>5066973
what am i getting so wrong?

>> No.5066979

>>5066971
lol

>> No.5066984

>>5066977
Autistic is an adjective that shows they are smarter than you.

UMAD SON UMAD?

>> No.5066998

Malebranche

>> No.5067003

>>5066998
why

>> No.5067014

>>5065975


ive recently heard of comte, so at this point in time, hes my least favorite

fuck that guy

>> No.5067015

>asians
>philosophy

>> No.5067016
File: 35 KB, 481x394, pshh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067016

>>5066971

Wow, that's real fucking profound.

>> No.5067018

My least favorite philosopher is Richard Dawkins. I know he's right and logical and scientific but I hate him because he killed my sky daddy ;(

>> No.5067028

>>5067018
>inb4 people start claiming Dawkins isn't a philosopher.

>> No.5067032
File: 1.69 MB, 200x200, 1400852314191.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067032

>>5067018
>>5067028

>> No.5067033

What's your most favorite philosopher? That's my least favorite.

>> No.5067037

>>5067032
I shit post when I'm taking a break from reading my philosophy book. Is there a problem?

>> No.5067045

>>5066978
Just consider the positive integers for instance. here is a natural order on them. In this order, 0 is the least. And what is the most ?
You don't need to resort to infinite sets to find example like that. Order where everything is ordered from least to most and you can always spoke about the lesser or greater element are an exception.

Conrary to what one would think, ordered sets are not that simple to deal with. Although this is not /sci, it's always better to keep your ideas straight.

>> No.5067053
File: 108 KB, 964x768, 1401915761667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067053

>>5067037

>>>/tv/
>>>/s4s/

>> No.5067064

Sartre or Beauvoir. Probably Sartre more, though.

>> No.5067087
File: 169 KB, 320x320, rudedude.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067087

>>5065975

Every single living American academic "philosopher" today.

>HURR SMITH AND JONES
>HURR THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS
>MUH INTUITIONS
>MUH SYMBOLIC LOGIC
>IF AN AGENT A AT A TIME T1 WITH A SET OF PREFERENCES P COMMITS AN ACT I IN A SOCIETY S WITH A SET OF MORAL NORMS N BLAH BLAH BLAH

Get fucked with a rake.

>> No.5067103

>>5067087
You seem to have a gripe with analytic philosophy.

So, when did you become retarded, may I ask?

>> No.5067107
File: 115 KB, 698x534, triggerwarning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067107

>>5067103

I guess I got a gripe with analytic philosophy around the same time I spurned autism.

>> No.5067119

Stirner, and not even because of his philosophy, but because of the people that talk about him on /lit/

As for the philosophy, probably Russel

>> No.5067126

>>5067107
Why not find the good in both sides you noob?

>> No.5067137
File: 75 KB, 983x1013, 1402967418732.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067137

>>5067126

In all seriousness, this is what I do, but this shit with the belabored symbolic logic in ethics and epistemology really needs to go.

>> No.5067138

>>5067045
okay, thanks.

i'm not quite sure in this specific case, i'm not warranted to say what i did though. mostly because you have a reason to hate a philosopher, so that reason should be able to identify a philosopher opposite that.

>> No.5067141

Aristotle. It took hegel to heal the damage aristotle and neoplatonism had done. Kierkegaard got rid of the single greatest idiot of all philosophy, epicurus. He's not even a philosopher, more a little bitch everyone mistook for a 'neckbeard'
, as you humans call it. My favorite is socrates, he was able to bring shamanism into philosophy by accepting the need for him to physically shed his ego drinking the hemlock. I know, i know, modernity is too stupid to get what i'm saying, how socrates became tiresias, the original sin creatorgod incarnate. Don't do drugs kids, well at least not unprepared. Least faborite philosopher ... Little bitches.

>> No.5067151
File: 2.69 MB, 320x180, 1403223136348.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067151

>>5065975
Ayn Rand.

>> No.5067152
File: 343 KB, 344x323, 1403590017906.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067152

>>5067141

wat

>> No.5067157
File: 64 KB, 1024x576, Elle_L._Lawliet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067157

>>5067141
I'm done trying to understand.

>> No.5067188

Sartre

The man was a Grade A bullshitter.

>> No.5067191
File: 25 KB, 259x383, 1395445209912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067191

>>5067141
>he was able to bring shamanism into philosophy by accepting the need for him to physically shed his ego drinking the hemlock

>> No.5067197
File: 428 KB, 576x432, 1402812556217.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067197

>>5067141

>He's not even a philosopher, more a little bitch everyone mistook for a 'neckbeard'

>> No.5067203
File: 120 KB, 600x406, 1356920923721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067203

>>5067151
second

>> No.5067206

>>5067141
Put the blunt down.

>> No.5067209

Nietzsche.

>> No.5067211
File: 308 KB, 512x512, 1402463035950.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067211

>>5067141
>>5067141
>>5067141

>> No.5067212
File: 58 KB, 1100x1100, meta principles of infinitesimal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067212

>>5067045


infinity is on a different metaphysical order than imminent being, which is defined by finitude.

attempts to apply concepts of infinity to reasoning in praxis results in bad ideas.

>> No.5067218
File: 105 KB, 385x576, 1403134822770.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067218

>>5067141

>> No.5067237
File: 15 KB, 300x250, owll ball.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5067237

>>5067141

>> No.5067872

>>5067151
>rand
>philosopher

Elvis Presley is more related to philosophy than Ayn fucking Rand.

>> No.5067887
File: 58 KB, 960x399, stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>Who's your least favorite philosopher?

Filename.

>> No.5067891

>>5067212
Did you read the following part of my post:
>You don't need to resort to infinite sets to find example like that.

? Because it already adresses your criticism.
Also, you can apply results of reasoning with infinity in praxis with success, provided you apply them wisely.

>> No.5067900
File: 164 KB, 1240x786, 1373081354210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>5067887
>not liking Stirner
pleb as fuck, tell me one bad thing about Stirner, that's right, you can't

>> No.5067909

>>5067900

You mean besides the fact that he's the poster child for autistic edgelords who think Nietzsche wasn't "hardcore" enough for them?

>> No.5067918
File: 116 KB, 659x870, Foucault com cabelo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Foucault, bar none.

I honestly think he's worse than Hitler.

Looks good in this photo though.

>> No.5067926

Nihilism is degeneracy.

> selfish
> emphasizes negative behaviors
> ignoring the fact that humans are social creatures
> implying there isn't meaning all around us

>> No.5067932
File: 21 KB, 289x292, rfskKoC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>5067926

This guy gets it.

>> No.5067961

>>5067926
...

Maybe that's why no philosopher espouses nihilism...

>> No.5067963

>>5067909
>poster child
>autistic
>edgelord
>Nietzsche
Jesus Christ, sit down faggot

>> No.5067967

This. Nihilism is the negation of social value (and objective values if you're into that) based on emotion. If you're going to negate social values on that basis, you might as well flip it around and construct utilitarianism out of it, making pleasure an innate value, which is useful for more than bitching or moaning, and is also better than the frenzied hedonism you might use nihilism as a justification for if you are saying one thing and doing another.

>> No.5067970

>>5067963

A spade is a spade.

>> No.5067972

>>5067918
How is Foucault possibly "worse than Hitler"?

He never even made an argument for any kind of ideal state. He just pointed out what the effects of certain institutions and ideologies were. He observes and interprets. That's it.

You've obviously never read Foucault, or even watched any of his translated interviews on Youtube. You just have a vague impression that he's "pomo" and "librul."

Fuck you.

>> No.5067993

>>5067972
I didn't mean to *actually* compare Foucault and Hitler. I just said ''worse than Hitler'' as meaning, ''really bad'', ''worse than the worst person of all time''. I don't know a lot about Foucault's more political views.

My problems with his philosophy is with is sexual beliefs.

>> No.5067994

>>5067926
Fuck off /pol/.

>> No.5068008

>>5067993
So what you're saying is you've never read Foucault?

>> No.5068026

>>5068008
I've read interviews and started reading History of Sexuality, but never finished a full book, no.

>> No.5068038
File: 52 KB, 770x433, riff-raff-by-jason-merritt[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Horst Christian Simco, assuming he exists beyond a character of himself.

Asking whether or not it's all an act is beyond the point

>> No.5068042

>>5068026
Im not the guy you're argueing with but read a book before you judge faggot

>> No.5068056
File: 9 KB, 350x490, 1372591007865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>5068026
So after reading what I'm going to assume amounts to less than one chapter of one of his books, you've decided that he's your "least favorite" philosopher?

Because you think you don't like his opinions on sexuality (which you probably can't even articulate)?

Do you read philosophy?

>> No.5068058
File: 385 KB, 1241x1800, 092513-blogs-jaden-smith[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>5065975

>> No.5068062

My dog. Worst philosopher ever. Hasn't even written any books.

>> No.5068065
File: 80 KB, 403x276, 1000722_558151484242005_651077306_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>5068042
As I said I did start reading one, but I didn't see a point in continuing since I wasn't liking it.

Anyway, I can judge him by what little I read, by statements he made outside of books, and by what my lecturers taught me about his ideas.

>> No.5068068

Peter Singer.

>Everything action you commit in life should be logically thought out beforehand so as to increase the net pleasure of all living beings

>attempt to buy an ice cone
>realize some kid in Africa could subsist for a day on the two dollars I'm paying for the ice cone
>don't buy the ice cone

>friend wants to go out with me
>nope, my time spent with you could be better spent donating most of my salary and selling off my non-essential possessions to raise a fund for some decrepit Zimbabwean village.

>> No.5068070

>>5068038
>performance art

>> No.5068098

>>5068056
Why would I deepen my knowledge at all in a thinker I don't agree with in the slightest?

And no, I've had lectures on Foucault and I'm familiar with some of his ideas (althought admittedly very superficially). I'm not judging solely on what I've read.

>> No.5068114

>>5068068
I remember Zizek saying that he thought charity, as it is, is stupid; It was not because he wanted to be edgy, but because he thought the money could be used more strategically to fix political problems, rather than suppressing the issues for a time.

>> No.5068139
File: 14 KB, 240x320, 1374057607550.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>5068098
>Why would I deepen my knowledge on something I haven't read

You're not familiar with his ideas. You even have to hedge your admission with "very superficially." You know you can't articulate any of Foucault's 'ideas' on sexuality.

It's probably better if you're content with being ignorant and reading nothing that could ever possibly challenge your own unexamined views. You don't sound like the kind of person who can read philosophical texts lucidly anyway.

>> No.5068172

>>5068139
You don't have to actually read a philosopher's text to understand their ideas, you idiot. Have you even been to college?

I actually think I learn more from lectures than from reading on my own, without orientation. Obviously it's ideal to have both, but not absolutely essential, I can understand the gist of a thinker's ideas without reading him, and can agree or disagree with them. What the fuck is the problem with that?

>> No.5068187

>>5068139
>Implying Foucault could even articulate his own ideas.

>> No.5068189

>>5068172
Interviews are answers to questions AFTER you already know what he's about. books have so much more detail over an interview

>> No.5068200

>>5067141

You dropped your spork, Katy.

>> No.5068203

>>5067045
Intuitive orders are implied when considering non-mathematical subjects. Are you always this much of a laboured hack? Are you the kind of person who starts conversations by visiting the politics of the Ottoman Tulip Age?

>> No.5068207

>>5068172
>I actually think I learn more from lectures than from reading on my own, without orientation.

This is why people are telling you you're not (at least at present) cut out to read and discuss philosophy.

>> No.5068215

>>5067087
>MUH INTUITIONS

Every damn philosopher ever from past to present.

>> No.5068219

>>5068189
I'm talking about an university lecture on Foucault.

I'm not denying it's BETTER to read him, but 1- I don't want to read something I don't enjoy 2- there are other authors that interest me more 3- I don't have time to read him in depth 4- I can still judge his ideas just by watching a 50 minute lecture 5- I don't even care that much about criticizing him holy shit I just answered the question casually, I didn't claim to be an expert on Foucault and I'm not using my criticisms of him for my master thesis or something, it's a motherfucking post on 4chan and it wasn't asking for the objective worst philosopher of all time, it was a personal question, the OP was even a bit humorous and my post didn't invite any discussion at all. Fuck, why are you such an autist.

>> No.5068229

>>5068219
> watches a 50 minute video on somebody he doesn't like
> I'M NOT READING HIS BOOK ITS BORING I'LL JUST WATCH THE VIDEO HURR DURR

>> No.5068234

>>5068207
Oh yeah right, so you can read and fully understand complex philosophical texts without orientation? Tell me another.

None of you are on that level and if you honestly think you can interpret such complex works without help, you're arrogant and ignorant, which is what's to be expected, I guess.

And I'm not discussing philosophy, not trying to. No on /lit/ ever discusses philosophy.

>> No.5068252

>>5068229
Just give up. He has no reason to entertain the thoughts of some faggot talking about power structures he wish he could fit up his ass.

>but that's not Foucault

I bet you didn't even read the Greeks, all of them.

>> No.5068257

>>5068252
> he has no reason

Are you really pretending to be somebody standing for you?

>> No.5068262

>>5068172
You understand the gist of the ideas, but because you don't read you don't watch them get built from arguments in detail. True engagement with philosophers happens on the level of the individual arguments they use to build up their systems and concepts. What you're doing is going shopping for ideas that suit your intuitions.

>> No.5068264

>>5067961
Ray Brassier would like a word with you.

>> No.5068268

Hegel is a blight.

>> No.5068287

>>5067970
Watch out, fellas. We got a guy who understands aphorisms here.

>> No.5068298

>>5066977
You = Pleb

>> No.5068323

>>5065994
Same here. We need to get a philosophy trading card game up and running to at least make shit threads like this interesting.

>> No.5068352

>>5067926
This. Nihilism is only for unimaginative and antisocial people.

>> No.5068547

>>5065975
Weird. I see that picture identified as Confucius all the time, but the label says it's King Xuan.

>> No.5068552

>>5068323
>gamer

kek

>> No.5068557

>>5068552
okay, not really. But it seemed like it would be fun

>> No.5068585

>>5066977
this

it's pretentious as fuck and should be capable of forming your own thoughts about things.

>> No.5068593
File: 107 KB, 319x319, hell yeah motherfucker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5068593

>>5067141

>> No.5068607

>>5068234
>fully understand
There's a reason there are different interpretations of most philosophers.

>> No.5068831

Sam Harris because muh free will.

>> No.5069009

>>5067900

>> No.5069017

>>5067926
>selfish
>emphasizes negative behaviors
>ignoring the fact that humans are social creatures
Absolutely nothing to do with nihilism.
>implying there isn't meaning all around us
There isn't. Meaning isn't a feature that things in the world have. Meaning exists in the same sense as unicorns.

>> No.5069024

>>5065975
Can you at least explain why?

>> No.5069033

>>5068172
>You don't have to actually read

Nothing good comes after that, kiddo.

>> No.5069180

>>5065975
Disregard Confucius.
Han Fei is much closer to reality.

>> No.5069198
File: 64 KB, 402x402, confusing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5069198

>>5065975
aw yeah