/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5629714]

Heidegger and Wittgenstein are obviously the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, but who are the best thinkers in the second tier?

[Anonymous No.5629763]

Nietzsche and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.5629764]

>>5629763
>20th Century

[Anonymous No.5629780]

>>5629714
Hitler

[Anonymous No.5629986]

Zizek and Chomsky

[The cats No.5629993]

Bitchard Dorkins

[Anonymous No.5629998]

GOD TIER
Félix Guattari, Guy Debord

GREAT TIER
Martin Heidegger, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze

GOOD TIER
Sigmund Freud, W. V. O. Quine

SHIT TIER
Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.5630078]

>>5629998
>including Lacan in a tier list of thinkers

Bait.

[Anonymous No.5630106]

Salvador Dalí. Best writer than painter.

[Anonymous No.5630125]

>>5629714
Derrida, Deleuze and Foucault.

[Anonymous No.5630145]

>>5629998
>Guattari in God tier
>Wittgenstein in shit tier
>cant kno nuffin!

[Anonymous No.5630148]

>>5629714
Bitch Please.

[Anonymous No.5630151]

>>5630125
move to france already.

[Anonymous No.5630162]

>Heidegger

[Anonymous No.5630165]

>>5629714
Quine
Lakatos
Derrida

[Anonymous No.5630243]

>>5629763

[Anonymous No.5630254]

>>5629998
the most shit list about anything ecer

[Anonymous No.5630275]

>>5630148
>[autism intensifies]

[Anonymous No.5630289]

>>5629998
I know Foucalt is only Great Tier because his work is not very complex but it's God Tier in usefulness for literature.

[Anonymous No.5631927]

>>5630162
>2014
>cannot into heidegger

haha

[Anonymous No.5631938]

Vaneigem.

[Anonymous No.5631958]

>>5629714

Searle, Rawls, Kripke, Russell.

[Anonymous No.5631961]

>>5630289
Foucault only wrote one book on literature and it's probably the least read/known.

[Anonymous No.5631988]

>>5631961
Lit theory fags adore him tho. >muh discourses

[Anonymous No.5632011]

>>5629714
Hitler was the only prophet

[Anonymous No.5632020]

Jürgen Habermas. What a brilliant academic. Despite his speaking handicap, he has managed a wonderful career.

[Anonymous No.5632023]

>>5632011

They must have bonded over their syphilis and amphetamine habits.

[Anonymous No.5632028]

>>5632020
Habermas is a Europhile cunt.

[Anonymous No.5632036]

>God tier
Wittgenstein, Godel, Kripke, Popper, Quine
>Good tier
Russell, Ayer, Carnap, Whitehead, Bergmann, Feigl
>Okay tier
Chomsky, Lewis, Plantinga, Jung, Strauss, Habermas
>Bad tier
Sartre, Foucault, de Beauvoir, Camus, Heidegger, Lacan, Deleuze, Husserl, Dreyfus
>Shit tier
Singer, Zizek,

[Anonymous No.5632040]

>>5632020
>>5632028
>>5632036
Where should somebody start with Habermas? Theory and Practice? Theory of Communicative Action?

[Anonymous No.5632042]

>Heidegger

[Anonymous No.5632077]

>>5629714
Stefan Molyneux

[Anonymous No.5632083]

>>5631938
not seperate enough from debord to be worth a mention

speaking of, Debord for 3rd greatest thinker of century

[Anonymous No.5632099]

>>5632036
What's wrong with Singer?

[Anonymous No.5632105]

>>5632099
He's a utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.5632108]

>>5629998
>Debord
>relevant

[Anonymous No.5632117]

>>5632108
>relevance
>relevant

[Anonymous No.5632119]

>>5632105
Utilitarianism is great when you don't carry it to logical extremes that defy our moral instincts.

[Anonymous No.5632156]

>>5629780
cheers m8, gave me a good kek

[Anonymous No.5632157]

>>5632119

Those aren't logical, though. The very persistence of those instincts prevents passing certain points from increasing the amount of pleasure. Like an ethical Laffer curve.

[Anonymous No.5632184]

>>5629986
seconded, they might as well be first on the list as well

[Anonymous No.5632220]

MH Abrams, Searle, Paul Fry, Quine.

[Anonymous No.5632370]

>>5631927
>implying you can

[Anonymous No.5632377]

>>5631961
His most useful book for lit theory is discipline and punish. Not even about lit

[Anonymous No.5632420]

>>5632377
Really? Not The Order of Things? Or History of Sexuality?

[Anonymous No.5632548]

>Heidegger
>Hitler
Sure is an edgy morning in Amerikkka.

[Anonymous No.5632553]

>>5629714
>Heidegger and Wittgenstein are obviously the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century

There are people on /lit/ who haven't read Korzybski.

[Anonymous No.5632563]

>>5629998
Get a load of this kid and his tiers

[Anonymous No.5632568]

>>5632563

Tiers from HEAVEN.

[Anonymous No.5632612]

>>5629714
>liking both Heidegger and Wittgenstein
you clearly haven't read either, why do you shitpost?

[Anonymous No.5632619]

>>5632612
>implying you have to like a philosopher to admire him
>implying Heidegger and Wittgenstein weren't pursuing similar projects in different idioms
>accuing somebody of being ignorant on this subject without having read Lee Braver's illuminating book Groundless Grounds

[Anonymous No.5632628]

>>5632619
oh, so you haven't read him, you can stop posting now buddy

[Anonymous No.5632636]

>>5632628
>you dun no wot u talkin abot cos u dont fall for simple conternetil/analitic divizion i red of on wikerpedier

[Anonymous No.5632645]

>>5632612
>>5632619
>>5632628
>>5632636

Both of you are faggots and should immediately shut up.

[Anonymous No.5632655]

>>5632645
>samefagging to end the conversation and make it seem like you didn't get absolutely destroyed by somebody better informed than you

[Anonymous No.5632905]

Oakeshott is the best philosopher of the twentieth century bar none

[Anonymous No.5632920]

>>5629714
The paradox of Wittgenstein is that he silences himself. Paradoxically this makes him both the wisest and most foolish of all philosophers -- I am reminded of Socrates' words that it is better to remain silent and be guessed an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Wittgenstein does the opposite; by speaking he creates doubt that he is a fool; by remaining silent, he removes all doubt; yet in this foolishness of silence he was found true Wisdom, at least in late Wittgensteinian terms. I just wrote an essay on this recently.

[Anonymous No.5632936]

>>5632920
Are you speaking of the final proposition in the Tractatus?

[Anonymous No.5632955]

If Heidegger's one of the greatest, then Dreyfus must be the absolute pinnacle of philosophical excellence in the 20th century, since he manages to be both clear and Heideggerian.

[Anonymous No.5632976]

>>5632955
it's easier to be clear about something once someone did the work of pointing it out in the first place but in philosophy the originality of an idea is generally more valued than its lucid articulation

[Anonymous No.5633185]

>>5632955
Dreyfus's work is far narrower than Heidegger's work. There are a number of themes which Heidegger elaborates fully which Dreyfus doesn't touch.

[Anonymous No.5633187]

>>5632955
In regard to Dreyfus, I would only go to Huber Dreyfus for a summary of the first division of Being and Time. For the second division, I would probably go to Richard Polt's introduction to Heidegger. Dreyfus is good for that division only because he wants to take up a particular interpretation with respect to Heidegger, the pragmatic one. However, much of that so-to-speak pragmatic life is completely re-imagined in division two in light of temporality; and Dreyfus completely ignores that facet of Heidegger. Thus, I would be careful. In general, we should not take thinkers, e.g. Heidegger, to be monolithic. It takes philosophical rigor to give an appropriate interpretation of Heidegger, and hell, I don't think of myself that highly at all, so I question my interpretation of Heidegger, as should you. In general, read the bloody book, and work at it, form your interpretation vis-à-vis secondary sources, but always recognize the secondary sources qua secondary sources. Anyways, I don't think Dreyfus is seriously taking up the generative character of meaning in regard to temporality, Dreyfus never claims that the meaning of the being of human existence is temporality. Rather, he wants to take up Heidegger interpretation and appropriation of the pragmatic life inherited from Aristotle's Manichean ethics.

>>5632920
Have you read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations?

[Anonymous No.5633208]

>>5632036

What have you got against Dreyfus? Also, I think it's absurd that you put Lacan simply in Bad Tier and someone like Singer in Shit Tier. Singer may be misguided and he may not be that great an arguer, but Lacan has been actively and seriously destructive to Western thought. The Lacanian school, which continues to permeate Western Europe, is the very epitome of charlatanism, intellectual dishonesty, baseless overanalysis, and frankly just bullshit. Lacan embodies all that is wrong with contemporary Western thought, and he may indeed be my least favorite "thinker" of the 20th century, if not of all time. He is poison, plain and simple.

So here's my list:

>Elder God Tier
Wittgenstein, Quine, Russell, Kripke, Putnam, Godel, Tarski
>Lesser God Tier
Ayer, Whitehead, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Carnap and other Vienna Circle members, Searle, Kuhn, Feyerabend
>Good Tier
Lewis, Chomsky, J.L. Austin, Anscombe, Gewirth, Habermas, Rawls, Nozick, both Churchlands, Dreyfus
>Meh Tier
[insert Analytic philosopher who's not made a name for himself but who's good enough at what he's done here]
>Shit Tier
Foucault, Habermas, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, and other relatively inoffensive Continentals
>Great Deceiver Tierr
Derrida, Lacan, Irigaray, Butler, Merleau-Ponty, Satan Himself

>Good Thoughts Expressed in a Fucking Godawful Manner, Resulting in an Entire Tradition of Obscurantism Which Continues Till Today Tier
Husserl and Heidegger

[Anonymous No.5633240]

>>5633208
How the fuck is Merleau-Ponty at great deceiver tier? He was clearer than fucking Heidegger and radicalized both the Husserlian and Heideggerian problematic by clearly thematizing embodiement.

[Anonymous No.5633242]

>>5633208
This anonfag is actually right! I'm glad to see such names as Feyerabend, Kuhn, and Popper. :)
Anyone know anything about Hacking or Latour? My thesis supervisor is always going on about them...
But why is Foucault so bad? And how about Bataille?

[Anonymous No.5633250]

>>5632905
But muh analytical tradition.

[Anonymous No.5633272]

>>5633208
>Habermas both good and shit
>Chomsky a good philosopher

[Anonymous No.5633275]

>No Stirner

GET OUT!

[Anonymous No.5633290]

>>5633208
>>5633242
Same poster here. How about Rorty, Dewey, Adorno, Althusser, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Arendt, Ryle, Nagel, Levinas, Dennett, Chomsky ... The list goes on!

[Anonymous No.5633297]

>>5633275
Not 20th century faggot.
>If trolling 6/9
>If being clueless 9/6

[Anonymous No.5633319]

>>5633208
>Habermas

[Anonymous No.5633379]

you kids need to read some Whitehead

[Anonymous No.5633420]

>No MacIntyre

Come on you fucking fags

[Anonymous No.5633446]

>>5632420
Explains the state of the modern graduates of our corporate Lit programs, doesn't it? A whole generation who can tell you about the plague but left to their devices can't suss out why they care.

[Anonymous No.5633599]

>>5633208
>Kripke and Russell in Elder God tier
>vaunts logical positivists, probably thinks scientists are concerned with verification of reality so long as it's steady and cogent
>diplomatically vaunts Husserl and Heidi for their thoughts, shits on Merleau-Ponty for making those thoughts legible to the average person
>Foucault not in Good tier and similarly de Beauvoir not in Meh tier for doing what Foucault did but less flexibly
>Chomsky doing better than Meh tier
>aforementioned Habermas debacle
>political philosophers ranked higher than their critics
>believes in the tradition
>tries Lacan as a philosopher and not as a usefully absurd performance artist

6/10, back to the tower with you, come back when you can code or be useful or something.

[Anonymous No.5633970]

>>5633599
>political philosophers ranked higher than their critics

Seems pretty reasonable. Agree with the rest.

[Anonymous No.5634605]

>>5633240

I admit I haven't read much of him. What I have read struck me as being absolute drivel, however. Maybe I'll give him another go.

>>5633242

Foucault, while not as radically offensive as most Postmodernists, still does not bring anything interesting to the table. His work would be immeasurably more meaningful if he'd done it Analytically. He may not be a Great Deceiver, insofar as he's only moderately obscurantist, but nonetheless his whole worldview is all wrong, and he's much too vague. As for Bataille, I've never read him, but from what I surmise, he sounds like a Great Deceiver.

>>5633272

I dunno why I repeated him in shit. He's aight. Perhaps he belongs more in Meh Tier.

>>5633290

>Rorty
Meh Tier. There are some things from him I like, but some things I strongly disagree with. I generally don't think the flirtation some Analytics try with Postmodernism is all that successful.
>Dewey
Horribly unclear. Shit Tier. He may have been fine as an educational philosopher (I've never read him on that), but as a metaphysician I think he's really bad.
>Adorno
Never read him, but I think he'd fit in with my category of relatively inoffensive Continental.
>Althusser
Never read him either, but I'd imagine Great Deceiver. He sounds like some of the worst when it comes to Postmodernists.
>Lyotard
Never read him.
>Baudrilliard
He's pretty bad. Shit tier.
>Arendt
Meh.
>Ryle
I'd say Lesser God Tier. Ordinary language philosophy was very important in the maturation of Analytic philosophy.
>Nagel
He's Good Tier. Kind of a one-trick pony, but he's still a very solid philosopher.
>Levinas
I'd actually never heard of this guy. He sounds mediocre, but that's just based on a Wikipedia article. So I dunno.
>Dennett
He's solidly Good Tier, except for when he goes full fedora. As a philosopher of mind, however, he's very good, and I agree with him on most things in that department. A very clear and conversational writer to boot, which I always like.
>Chomsky
Already ranked him.

[Anonymous No.5634688]

>>5633599

I know you're half-joking here (calling me putting Habermas down twice a "debacle"), but I'll respond nevertheless.

>>Kripke and Russell in Elder God tier
What, precisely, is you issue with this. Russell is practically the Platonic form of the rigorous philosopher, and Kripke's importance in philosophical logic in recent years cannot be underestimated. Besides which, he's probably the greatest still-creative philosopher alive today - we may not have seen the last of him, when it comes to new ideas. He's still only in his early 70s, an age in which, for most philosophers, one's career is still going strong.
>>Merleau-Ponty
Well, his thoughts are CERTAINLY not legible to the "average person", but I'll admit I was perhaps quick to judge.
As for Foucault, I've already stated why I don't care for him. And indeed, de Beauvoir is in the same boat, as far as I can tell.
>>Chomsky doing better than Meh Tier
I can understand if his recent "work" on politics leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but his influence on the philosophy of language cannot be underestimated. He never really directly engaged with philosophy, but nonetheless his work as a younger man is incredibly important to the contemporary dialogue there.
>>political philosophers ranked higher than their critics
What's the problem here?
>believes in the tradition
What does this even mean? Which tradition are you talking about?
>>tries Lacan as a philosopher and not as a usefully absurd performance artist
Here I realize you're being somewhat facetious, but in any case I shall try Lacan exactly as what he claimed to be - a "theorist" who was at the crossroads of philosophy, psychology, psychoanalysis, and religion. As a matter of fact, he was far removed from any of those subjects, instead conducting his disciples into his own fantasy realm where reason is not welcome. As such, he is beyond a bad philosopher - he is actively damaging, dumping poison and vitriol into the waters of the intellectual tradition of Western Europe. If he was "just pretending". he was certainly very good at it, and he certainly fooled me. I can scarcely imagine how hard it must have been to just pretend to be an egomaniacal, dishonest, lazy, intentionally obscure, and highly immoral piece of garbage for 80 years straight.

[Anonymous No.5634731]

>>5632612
It's commonly agreed nowadays that the two of them actually argued the same things, just in very different ways. They also liked each other

[Anonymous No.5634738]

>all the people putting Wittgenstein and Quine in the highest tier
Wittgenstein would have hated Quine

[Anonymous No.5634772]

>>5634731
>wittgenstein said one thing about heidegger
>heidegger said two things about wittgenstein, one of which was a misquote

BESTIES

[Anonymous No.5634791]

>>5632553
Where do I start with this guy? I've seen his name thrown about /lit/ every now and then and that Polish name intrigues me.

[Anonymous No.5634794]

>>5634791

30 seconds on Wikipedia will help you with that.

[Anonymous No.5634796]

>>5633208
Put Feyerabend in shit-tier and we have a winner! I'll never understand why people love >muh Galileo so much.

[Anonymous No.5635052]

I met and spoke with Jürgen Habermas on thursday.
What an extraordinary man.
He gave a lecture about How Europe faces the challenge of transnationalising democracy. What included an analysis of current problems and future problems of the EU. And a thought experience explaining how it could be solved. More democracy and more EU in his own way a system of a double sovereign and that jazz.

Afterwards I went to him and asked him the question: considering how Ukraine shifted from EU influence to Russia's sphere of influence what triggered a public uprising, and made the current civil war happen. don't you think a stronger/bigger democratic EU will create more conflicts? how can we avoid tensions? he said that was a brilliant and hard question. he thought about it for a minute. Then he smiled and told me he had no sensible answer to my question. He then tapped my shoulder and shook my hand. and that was when he had to leave. ;_;

[Anonymous No.5635118]

>>5634772
Considering how colossally arrogant the pair of them were, I would say their statements about each other were pretty significant

[Anonymous No.5635161]

>>5635118

And yet when you read them, they're not.

[Anonymous No.5635278]

Heidegger looks like he has a micropenis

[Anonymous No.5635329]

Wittgenstein appeals to teenagers who fancy themselves "troubled geniuses" or "bipolar geniuses." Oh today I'm horribly depressed and want to kill myself and but oh today I'm a brilliant genius and I write cryptic pamphlets revealing the most fundamental truths in all of reality. Teens, in their youthful naivety and good-spirits, god bless them, mistake Wittgenstein's childish arrogance and spaghetti-code-tier obfuscations for brilliance. Truly good old Witty was too smart for even himself, sometimes! Who'd think that it would be a scrawny little jew with attitude problems - not some macho hollywood hunk - that would captivate teens?

[Anonymous No.5635337]

>>5635329

[Anonymous No.5635338]

>>5635329
DFW appeals to the same group. The interview with him on the german television station is like porn for them, and they gradually start copying his mannerisms - "is this making any sense?", *cringe*, "the paradox here is that - ". It's no coincidence that DFW was a Wittgenstein fanatic; he [DFW] never grew out of his fascination with "troubled geniuses" and became so obsessed with them that he started pretending to be one himself. At least he properly killed himself; the same can't be said of Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.5635411]

>>5635329

This is absurd. What differentiates the Analytics from the Continentals is that the philosophy of the Analytic can be divorced from his personality.The Continental, on the other hand, does not divorce his philosophy from his personal inclinations, and is proud of it, in fact. As such, Wittgenstein's neuroses are not necessarily an essential part of his philosophy. Indeed, to me his personality doesn't sound very attractive - he sounds like he was a real pissant. Despite all this, his greatness must be acknowledged. Anyone who does not acknowledge it is merely being contrarian.

[Anonymous No.5635423]

>>5635337
>dismissal of nietzsche
>reliance on claim that knowledge or certainty is impossible
what?

[Anonymous No.5635435]

>>5635337

But Nietzche was less of a philosopher and more of a poet. There isn't a whole lot of substance there.

[Anonymous No.5635513]

>>5635423

What bit don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.5635554]

>>5635513
isn't that something Nietzsche professed though, Perspectivism.

why would someone say dismiss nietzsche but proclaim his ideas

[Anonymous No.5635567]

tfw about to graduate but have never looked into history of philosophy so can't justify your tiers

[Anonymous No.5635568]

>>5635554
>why would someone say dismiss nietzsche but proclaim his ideas

Well, firstly, they're just items on a list, bearing no necessary relation to one another.

Secondly, the image is describing people who are clueless. Why should an inconsistency on the part of a clueless person be puzzling?

[Anonymous No.5635621]

>>5635554
No you are adding post modern bullshit in nietzsche here.

[Anonymous No.5635651]

>>5629714
Donald Davids

[Anonymous No.5635658]

>>5635651
*Davidson

[Anonymous No.5636370]

>>5630148
I really like him. He was trying to be honest.

[Anonymous No.5637262]

>>5635621

I assume he's thinking of "There are no facts, only interpretations". But I don't know enough about Nietzsche to comment, I just remember seeing the line.

[Anonymous No.5637281]

>>5635329

This is the most awfull rant full of ad hominems I have ver seen in a philosophy thread on /lit/.

The most horrible aspect of it is that you parade your ignorance proudly.

Truly, please kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.5637302]

>>5633420
>virtue ethics

[Anonymous No.5637311]

>>5632036
>>5633208

Typical analytic school irrational bias.

The fact that you people praise Feyerabend, Kuhn and Wittgenstein and then shit on Derrida and Deleuze who basicaly advocate the same things makes me think that you only heard about continental philosophy only onece in your lives, when your proffessor made a dismissive comment about them.

Stay dogmatic, friends.

[Anonymous No.5637316]

>>5637311
>who basicaly advocate the same things
Deleuze is a sophist whose work can literally be interpreted as whatever the fuck you want.

[Anonymous No.5637322]

>>5633208
why did you put habermas both in shit tier and in good tier

[Anonymous No.5637339]

>>5637311
>Feyerabend, Kuhn and Wittgenstein
>Derrida and Deleuze
>basicaly advocate the same things

have you considered suicide?

[Anonymous No.5637344]

>>5637316
>Deleuze is a sophist whose work can literally be interpreted as whatever the fuck you want.

that's what a person too retarded to read logic of sense and difference & repetition would say

[Anonymous No.5637350]

>>5637344
No that's actually what anyone with two functioning brain cells and a taste for clarity of expression would say.

[Anonymous No.5637355]

>>5637350
at least two*

[Anonymous No.5638927]

>>5637322
He should have just put him in shit

[Anonymous No.5639134]

>>5629998
>being this continental
>listing debord without lukacs or marcuse

[Anonymous No.5639235]

>>5629714
God tier: Wittgenstein, Deleuze, Foucault, Heidegger, Freud

Good tier: Derrida, Quine, Guattari, Althusser, Bataille, Debord, Sartre, Firestone

Eh Tier: Lacan, Kripke, de Beauvoir, Russell

[Anonymous No.5639297]

>>5632099
His logic is retarded.

[Anonymous No.5640416]

Who could disagree with me?

>Best tier:
Wittgenstein, Heidegger

>Good tier:
Russell, Frege, Kripke, GE Moore, Ramsey, Nietzsche, Kirkegaard

>Okay Tier
Quine, Kant

>Bad Tier
Marx, Hegel, Zizek, Sartre, Derrida, Camus

[Anonymous No.5640435]

>>5637311
>who basically advocate the same things
How can Deleuze and Derrida advocate the same things if their writing is in fact meaningless, and thusly cannot advocate anything in particular? In fact, what you claim is doubly fallacious, since Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Wittgenstein had pretty radically different philosophies. Yes, they were all broadly nonpositivistic, but that doesn't mean they were the same fucking thing you dunce. If I have a radically oversimplified view of Continental philosophy (but how can I have an oversimplified view of philosophies that are literally meaningless - not to say all Continental philosophy is, but certainly Deleuze and Derrida are), then you're guilty of the same in regards to the Analytic tradition. Have you even read any of the three Analytics you mentioned?

[Anonymous No.5640443]

>>5640416

I could, since Nietzsche, Marx and Hegel were all 19th century.

[Anonymous No.5640447]

>>5640416

>Quine, Kant
>>Okay
I feel nought but the Void. I AM nought but the Void.

[Anonymous No.5640458]

>>5640443

Didn't even see Kant (he's not very tall).

[Anonymous No.5640578]

>>5634605
Your way of using labels and capital letters make me think you would be good at writing comics.

Please write a "Analytic vs. Continental" comics. I'd buy it, with the requirement that you include a "Deceiver Team" with the official rank of "Great Deceiver".

[Anonymous No.5640597]

>>5630078
>not including Lacan
are you some sort of deviant homosexual?

[Anonymous No.5640616]

>>5635621
Postmodernism, to the extent that it's a thing and not merely a wraparound word, owes a lot to Nietzsche (just look at Foucault for one).

[Anonymous No.5640621]

>>5635411
To be fair the Tractatus displays some serious autism.

[Anonymous No.5640628]

>>5635052
I wish I could say I feel you, anon, but I can't, having never approached a reknowned intellectual.

Props for adding actual content itt. What was the solution Habermas suggested for the current problems of the EU ?

[Anonymous No.5640645]

>>5640416
Your bait is probably the more subtle in this thread, and that's saying a whole lot about this thread.

[Anonymous No.5640676]

Since this thread seems to be a trashcan where people throw names of twentieth century philosophers they have heard of, I submit Bergson, Unamuno and Nishida.

[Anonymous No.5640688]

>Ayer (!!! what the fuck?), Feyerabend, Lakatos, and Searle all above Lewis (assuming David), Chomsky, Austin, Anscombe, Rawls, Nozick
>Gewirth fucking who?
>No Frege, Davidson, Hempel, Strawson, Grice

What the fuck.

[Anonymous No.5640702]

>>5640688
meant to refer to >>5633208

[Anonymous No.5640918]

>no papa Gadamer

[Anonymous No.5640933]

>>5630151
Even the French are done with these fags.

[Anonymous No.5640953]

>>5640688

Davidson I'd put in Lesser God tier (perhaps even God Tier - I agree with him on a lot of things, but I haven't read him that extensively yet). Thanks for reminding me. As for Hempel, I've never actually read him, so i can't say. Stawson I'd probably put in Lesser God Tier (assuming you're talking about P.F.). I've never read Grice either, so i can't weigh in on him. Frege, of course, is Elder God Tier. And I had a hard time deciding between the Good Tier people and the Lesser God Tier people, so forgive me if I perhaps made some minor errors.

[Anonymous No.5640978]

>>5640918
Is Hans-Gregor that big in the old continent? I really like the stuff I've read about culture and aesthetics, but I don't know what elsehe did.

[Anonymous No.5640995]

>>5637302
You're just mad because he's right.

[Anonymous No.5641961]

God-tier: Wittgenstein, Carnap, Sartre
Good-tier: Quine, Popper, Habermas, Foucault, Whitehead, Putnam
Okay-tier: Heidegger, Hempel, Duhem, Zizek, Deleuze
Bad-tier: Chomsky, Derrida, Singer, Ayer
Lacan-tier: Lacan, honorary mention of Hegel

[Anonymous No.5641974]

>>5629714
Derek Parfit, who is in tier one so far of the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.5641997]

>>5641961
>Sartre
>god-tier

[Anonymous No.5642020]

>>5629714

GOD TIER

Science

SHIT TIER

Philosophy

[Anonymous No.5642027]

>>5629998
i agree, add marcuse and horkdorno to "good", althusser to "great"

[Anonymous No.5642038]

>>5634605
please kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5642053]

>>5637355
nice save

[Anonymous No.5642055]

GOD TIER
Félix Guattari, Guy Debord

GREAT TIER
Martin Heidegger, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze

GOOD TIER
Sigmund Freud, W. V. O. Quine

SHIT TIER
Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.5642286]

>>5642038

What's the problem, exactly?

[Anonymous No.5642312]

>>5629998
Worst list I've ever seen on /lit/

[Anonymous No.5642328]

>>5642055
>Freud

[Anonymous No.5642361]

>>5629998
GOD TIER
Wittgenstein

GREAT TIER
Martin Heidegger

DEPENDS TIER (SOME OF IT IS OK)
W. V. O. Quine, Michel Foucault, Žižek, Derrida,

LOW TIER
Sigmund Freud

SHIT TIER
Gilles Deleuze

[Anonymous No.5642569]

>>5642055
continental pleb pls leave immediately

[Anonymous No.5642659]

>>5640953
You didn't explain why someone like Ayer is under "Lesser God Tier". Putting him above Lewis, Chomsky, Austin, Anscombe, Rawls and Nozick is just inconceivably stupid. All he did was popularize logical positivism by writing a popular book wherein nearly all the ideas were derived from other logical positivists. That's it. Such third-rate contributors deserve no mention whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.5642818]

>>5642053
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.5642825]

>>5640995
Him being right would imply moral realism, which is a mountain of shit.

[Anonymous No.5642951]

>>5640978
He was never famous or anything during his livetime, because Habermass and Derride were the superstars. Only now is he gaining traction because of the nationalist revival in Europe. I;ve also only read his essays on european culture, but apparently Truth and Method is the continuiation of orthodox-hermeneutics, aka the truest student of Heiddi.

[Anonymous No.5644183]

>>5642951
>the nationalist revival in Europe
Wait, Gadamer is a Based Right Winger?

[Anonymous No.5645015]

>>5639297
His what?

[Anonymous No.5645510]

>>5635052

nice, thanks for posting this

[Anonymous No.5645776]

>>5642951
>>5644183

Okay, i think there is a big misunderstanding here. Gadamer is the 20th century second most important german philosopher after Heidegger. After Heidegger's death, Gadamer began to be THE german philosopher invited everywhere and contributing in every debate. Even german farmers knew who Gadamer was, so he was famous.

Truth and Method is NOTHING like a continuation of "orthodox-hermeneutics". Traditional hermeneutics in greece : we need a method to interprete the text and their metaphor (interpretation or Homer, Plato, etc). After, hermeneutic was appropriated by christian who needed a method to escape from a literalist reading of the bible. To make a short story, traditional hermeneutic was : Schleiermauer, the historic school, Dilthey and some others. it was a reflexion about a clear and a defined method to reach truth in Geistwissenschaften ("human sciences") in opposition of natural sciences that already have their own method.
Hermeneutic begin to be philosophical with Heidegger. Hermeneutic is not a method for Geistwissenschaften, but it is how human interprete itself. Heidegger totally transform what used to be hermeneutic into a interpretation of our own existence (hermeneutic of facticity). And then come Gadamer. Gadamer stick with the heideggerian conception of hermeneutics but applies it to establish a dialogue with the classical hermeneutic. His question is simple : is method necessary to reach truth? No. Art, poetry, philosophy, human sciences does not need a method to reach truth (careful, he is not against method either). Gadamer goes back to the humanist tradition to remind us of the REAL purpose of humanities : common sense, formation, education, Aristotle's phronesis (practical knowledge). So Gadamer is absolutely not in the continuation of orthodox-hermeneutics.

Why is he unknown? Gadamer is known in Germany, italy, Canada and South America. He is unknown or dislike in France and english speaking countries where he is understood as a relativist.
Gadamer is not right wing, nor left wing (he survived nazism and communism, and he refuse both). Gadamer understand himself as a philosopher, and refuse any political role.

Sorry about my english, i am french.

[Anonymous No.5647064]

>>5629986

I hope you're being ironic.

[Anonymous No.5647080]

>>5645776

He meant 'orthodox hermeneutics' in the sense of 'Heideggerian orthodox' I think.

[Anonymous No.5647096]

>>5629714
>Wittgenstein
>words and statements mean things
>sometimes different things

woooah

[Anonymous No.5647107]

>>5629714
Isn't that like being the greatest swordsman of the 20th century?

[Anonymous No.5647300]

>>5647107
Ebin

[Anonymous No.5647371]

>>5629714
my tumblr has decent thoughts, and waifus

[Anonymous No.5647376]

>>5647080
Well, there is no such things as "heideggerian orthodox" and even if there was, Gadamer is certainly not in it. As i said, Gadamer goes back to humanist tradition, he goes back to Aristotle and Plato and he is in a constant dialogue with romantic philosopher and classical hermeneutic, while Heidegger and heideggerian would reject all of those tradition saying that they here too "metaphysic", so these tradition would have participated in the forgetting of Being. So, the major difference between the two is that Heidegger tries to go forward metaphysic, while Gadamer tries to open a dialogue.
and, just saying, Heidegger/Gadamer/Ricoeur (what we call hermeneutic today) have nothing to do with classical hermeneutic. Hermeneutic is not a method, but a way human being interprete himself.

[Anonymous No.5647419]

>>5632905
Wow never saw him on here before. Eric Kos is that you?

[Anonymous No.5647449]

>>5647096
>Decartes
>but how do you know like we're not in the Matrix man?

whoooah

[Anonymous No.5647702]

>>5644183
As a person he is a Nationalist.

[Anonymous No.5647844]

>>5647702
No, if you read his biography, he always voted liberal... whats this obsession of making him a nationalist?

[Anonymous No.5647865]

>>5645776
>>5644183

Yes, Gadamer didn't want to be involved in politics, but personally he was conservative as he appeals to tradition as a constituent in understanding. Even Habermas said that Gadamer is conservative in his treatment of tradition.

[Anonymous No.5648835]

JOHN FINNIS IS THE GREATEST PHILOSOPHER OF ALL TIME

>Indeed, the drive for same-sex marriage seems in large measure an element in a strategy of parrying and finally de-legitimizing cultural-moral critiques of same-sex sex acts, critiques which in their proper form are critiques of all non-marital sex acts, heterosexual and homosexual alike. This de-legitimizing strategy finds a willing aide in the ideologists of equality of entitlement to esteem. The ideology, which of course subjects its equality axiom to arbitrary exceptions, draws support from all whose scepticism about all human value prevents them from assessing reasonably whether the ways of life esteemed are all equally or even sufficiently compatible with common good. Such scepticism is kept from plunging into utter nihilism only by this devotion to equality, which functions for the devotees like a rotting bough over the stream just above the misted lip of the falls.

Degenerate nihilistic philistines BTFO.

[Anonymous No.5649689]

>>5647865
This is a misunderstanding. What Gadamer says is that we always happen to be in a certain tradition, and we must be aware of it. Habermas thought that we must escape tradition and that Gadamer's thought was conservative. But, Gadamer is not conservative, it is a philosophical thesis, not a political one : we all happen to be in a certain tradition. Even Habermas is in a certain tradition : occidental philosophy, german philosophy, marxism, critical theory. Our duty is to understand that our concepts come from somewhere, and we cannot just use them without knowing in which tradition they were created. Gadamer is not defending a specific tradition, but he only says that our thinking is always historical, and then, happen to be in a certain tradition (that we must critic when we have to, that is not the point). Historically, Habermas showed he was way more victim of ideology (communism) than Gadamer was conservative.

[Anonymous No.5650385]

>>5648835

>OH MY GOD IF WE LET THE GAYS GET MARRIED CIVILIZATION WILL COLLAPSE!!!!

[Anonymous No.5650402]

>>5650385
excellent rebuttal

[Anonymous No.5650469]

>>5650402
I don't see anything that needed rebutting. Not much of a persuasive argument really.

[Anonymous No.5650472]

>>5648835
this guy's whole thesis is worthless though. marriage and procreation are two separate things.

[Anonymous No.5650496]

>>5647449
>>5635337

[Anonymous No.5650522]

>>5632036
for one camus should not be involved in this and secondly, bad? go fuck youself

[Anonymous No.5650576]

>>5629714

William James, Alfred North Whitehead, David K. Lewis, E.M. Cioran, Fredric Jameson, Bertrand Russell, Husserl

[Anonymous No.5651776]

>>5650472
>marriage and procreation are two separate things.
Not on Finnis's definition of marriage, which he goes to great lengths to explain and justify.

[Anonymous No.5651973]

>>5651776

So according to Finnis, heterosexual people would cease having sex and having babies if they didn't get married? Nothing suspicious about that claim....

[Anonymous No.5651996]

>>5649689
you're oversimplifying habermas so much

[Anonymous No.5652001]

>>5651973
No, that doesn't follow at all you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.5652008]

>>5629714
that's weird, neither of those writers you mentioned are Bertrand Russel

[Anonymous No.5652055]

>>5652008

[Anonymous No.5652076]

>>5648835
This is so much smokescreening to say so little.
>progressives are nihilists whose only value is equality
>therefore they are wrong
>muh marriage muthafugga

[Anonymous No.5652091]

>>5652076
>a professor of philosophy and jurisprudence at oxford can't into thinking because what he says offends my hard-left liberal values

Fuck off

[Anonymous No.5652096]

>>5652091
>argument from authority
pls

[Anonymous No.5652099]

>>5652076
I agree. "Progressives" (rebranded Gnostics) have been opposed to the concept of family, on spiritual and ideological grounds, since at least since the time of classical Athens and Aristophanes. "Gay marriage" is just another round at attempting to destroy that hated social construct of all social constructs known as the 'nuclear family'.

[Anonymous No.5652109]

>>5652099
you mean liberals, not progressives

[Anonymous No.5652122]

>>5651996
Well, simplifications is all you can hope from a 4chan thread, but at least, i didnt say something wrong. Saying Gadamer is conservative is not only simplifying, it is wrong. Habermas didnt understand correctly Gadamer's thesis. We all belong in certain tradition, even marxism, even progressivism are traditions. And tbh, after Gadamer-Habermas debate, Habermas changed his position to a more open to dialogue position (Gadamer...). Habermas is a great thinking, but back then, he was kinda naive, saying that critic is anhistorical and doesnt belong to any tradition. Habermas is still a very great thinker tho.

[Anonymous No.5652169]

God tier: Zyzz

Meh Tier: Sam Harris

Bullshitter tier: Neckbeard "academics" posted itt

[Anonymous No.5652176]

Did someone say German philosophy?

[Anonymous No.5652179]

>>5648835

Even Australian philosophers are shitposters.

[Anonymous No.5652181]

>>5647376

>Gadamer is not a Heideggerian

Okay.

[Anonymous No.5652320]

>>5647865
Habermans was insane enough to call Foucalt a young conservative.

[Anonymous No.5652327]

>>5652179
Dworkin pls go

[Anonymous No.5652658]

>>5652091
>hard-left

lol

[Anonymous No.5652666]

>>5652091
lol

[Anonymous No.5653016]

>>5652181
Where did i say he was not? Please, stop this sophism. Gadamer pick up the burden, but he is not an "orthodoc heideggerian". My proof is : he goes back to Plato, Aristotle, middle age transcendatalist, humanism, german romanticism, Hegel, etc. Heidegger would have said (and it is what he blaming Gadamer) that we must not go back to metaphysic, we have to jump out of it. Souces? Beiträge zur Philosophie. Chapter : Die Sprung. This is the last time i am answering in this thread because there is too much of sophism and bad faith.

[Anonymous No.5653108]

>>5630275
> Since i think your arguments are autistic my arguments are instantly not retarded and contradictory!

- Continental Shitters

[Anonymous No.5653215]

>>5653108
>autism is kewl

-Russellfags