[ 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: 4 KB, 125x125, 1388894124160s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5647660 No.5647660 [Reply] [Original]

GOD TIER
Hegel, Plato, Wittgenstein, Hume
HIGH TIER
Heidegger, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant
MID TIER
Spinoza, Locke, Descartes, Plotinus
LOW TIER
Aristotle
SHIT TIER
Bertrand Russel

>> No.5647668
File: 88 KB, 512x386, 1283313178632.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5647668

>>5647660
>Hume

>> No.5647673

>Locke
>Worth mentioning

>> No.5647675 [DELETED] 

>>5647660

>Descartes

nigger, nooooooooo

>> No.5647682

>>5647675
Do you like Frenchmen or something?

>> No.5647697

>Hume?

Did you just read sophie's world or some shit, cause Hume was not a majorly influential figure beyond the empiricists.

Also switch your high tier with God tier

Where's the Sartre, wheres the Kierkegaard OP?

>> No.5647706

>Aristotle
>low tier
He invented term logic, that's like calling someone who invents the alphabet a shitty writer.

>> No.5647709

>>5647682

Can't deny

>> No.5647715

>>5647697
>Hume was not a majorly influential figure beyond the empiricists
Are you stoned? Hume was a major influence on Kant.

>Where's the Sartre, wheres the Kierkegaard OP?
This like looking at a list that contains writers like Dante and Shakespeare, and then asking where Burroughs and Andre Breton are.

>> No.5647733

>Inspirational Tier:
Nietszche, St. Augustine, Kierkegaard, Pascal

>Practical Tier:
Schopenhauer, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Montaigne, Zeno, Laozi

>Genuis Tier
Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein

>Entertaining Tier
Descartes, Hobbes, Hegel, Aristotle, Derrida, Kripke, Quine, Foucault

>Misunderstood Tier
Deleuze, Marx, Chomsky

>Shit Tier
Rand, Voltaire, Rousseau, Russell, Carnap, Singer, Zizek


>>5647697
>Hume was not a majorly influential figure beyond the empiricists.

You forgot Hume was the main figure Kant was responding to in Critique of Pure Reason, yet Kant still couldn't satisfactorily refute Hume's skeptecism

>> No.5647737

>>5647715
I seriously hope you mean that Burroughs stands for Sartre and Breton for Kierkegaard, and not the other way around.

>> No.5647738

>>5647737
I put them in respective order, so yes.

>> No.5647740

>>5647733
I like your way of tiering. But I disagree with you on Kant, his answer to Hume was half-satisfactory.

>> No.5647742

>>5647738
Just to make sure.

Glad I won't have to use my gun.

>> No.5647743

>>5647733
>You forgot Hume was the main figure Kant was responding to in Critique of Pure Reason, yet Kant still couldn't satisfactorily refute Hume's skeptecism
Have you actually read the Critique? It's only partially a refutation of Hume, for the most part Hume served as a way to temper Kant's rationalism. Kant became neither an empiricist nor a rationalist, he said both were necessary, typically blended, and he became convinced of this because of Hume.

>> No.5647752

>>5647743

Point being that Hume's philosophy was what brought into necessity for the writing of the Critique.

>> No.5647754

>>5647733
I pretty much agree with the exception of Rousseau.

>> No.5647840

I started analytics not long ago and I noticed something strange. I've been told Russell was a hippie lefty and as I started with his "Sceptical Essays" over time I built up convinction he's a total ethnocentrist. In the way that yes, he's clearly left-wing, but an universalist at that. Critiques Chinese civillization with no hesitation that modern cultural relativism would imply. Did he make a correct impression on me? Or not really?

>> No.5648092

>>5647733
Great ranking.

>> No.5648153

>>5647840
The problem is you're trying to fit people into bullshit categories like "hippie lefty" or whatever.

I mean hell, cultural relativism wasn't even a thing back in his day.

>> No.5648166

>>5647840
The left-right dichotomy is false.

>> No.5648170

>>5648166
the god tier-shit tier dichotomy is false

>> No.5648172

>>5648170
Not as false as the left-right dichotomy.
Unless you meant to
>imply
that there are no qualitative differences between things.

>> No.5649017

>>5647660
>God tier
>plato anywhere near that shit
Also, switch nietzsche with hegel and add schopenheier to god tier.

>> No.5649021

>>5647840
>left wing
>right wing
Get with the times grandpa, it's all about left-right economic policies, authoritarian/libertarian social policies.

>> No.5649295

Add a new tier above God called Absolute Spirit tier and put only Hegel there

>> No.5649318

Hey, to avoid making unnecessary threads, just a quick question.
I'm a little freaked out about the question of what is knowledge and what are the legitimate ways of getting it, so I decided to get into epistemolog. From what seems to be the most important thinkers, I derived this itinerary:
Descartes -> Hume -> Kant -> Quine
Something missing?

>> No.5649343

>>5649318
Wittgenstein>Kant>Hume>Descartes>Plato

>> No.5649356

>>5649318
Probably need Popper on the end

>> No.5649371

>>5649318
What do those thinkers, despite the fact that they all wrestled with epistemology, have to do with "getting knowledge"? If you write *this* vaguely, you have no chance of understanding someone like Quine.

>> No.5649379

>>5647733
>Inspirational Tier: Nietszche, St. Augustine, Kierkegaard, Pascal
As of late, you stupid Christian-hipsters are getting on my nerves. All, without exception, belong to "Meh Tier".

>> No.5649383

>>5649379
>stupid Christian-hipsters
Maybe some people are actually Christian, hmm?

>> No.5649391

>>5649379
>Atheism
>2014

>> No.5649410

>>5649383
I highly doubt that. They have been trending and the bandwagon has been going for a while now.

On a side note, someone should definitely organize a survey for finding out the demographics of religion of /lit/.

>> No.5649412

>>5649379
>Christian-hipsters
>Nietzsche

>Kierkegaard
>meh

>Saint Ang
>not a fucking genuis

>Pascal
>important mathematician, scientist and philosopher
>anything to do with christianity more than was required at the time

>> No.5649413

Do you think anchors catch fish?

>> No.5649415

>>5647743
>ΟΥΤΙΣ
Brah, where's the polyglot thread?

>> No.5649432

>>5649379

Sorry, but Kierkegaard belongs in High Tier if he doesn't break "God tier". Augustine is important for brilliant revival of Platonic thought.

>> No.5649469

>>5649379

>Ludwig Wittgenstein was immensely influenced and humbled by Kierkegaard,[212] claiming that "Kierkegaard is far too deep for me, anyhow. He bewilders me without working the good effects which he would in deeper souls

>> No.5649491

>>5649356
>>5649343
So Kant -> Wittgenstein -> Quine -> Popper?
>5649371
Yes, I'm not into the field. Probably I won't know the right terminology. My question is exactly if knowledge can come from reason alone, from the external world alone, from which kind of interaction between both, etc

>> No.5649505

>>5649491
I don't now what exactly you're trying to ask or what the order in which you've written those names is supposed to say about their relationship to each other or your question.
I'd suggest reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and maybe Quine/Popper. I haven't read either of the last two but they've been suggested a lot.

>> No.5649597

>>5649505
Descartes->Hume means
start with Descartes then progress with Hume, then progress with...
I want to group them more or less in a way I can see there is some kind of progression or at least an answering to the last one(s)

>> No.5649615

>>5649597
Descartes>Hume>Kant>Hegel>WIttgenstein

>> No.5649626

>>5649615
Hegel writes about epistemology? I thought he was interested mainly in metaphysics

>> No.5649648

>>5649626

Hegel writes about everything, but aminly about how Napoléon was a pretty cool guy and logic.

>> No.5649651

>>5649626
He talks about the way experience works. That's vaguely epistemological.
>Concrete things outside the mind interact with the abstractions of Thought and produce knowledge/experience

>> No.5649659

>>5649651
Although this isn't anything you won't find in Kant, I don't think. That aspect of him is basically just transcendentalism.

>> No.5649694

>>5649651
>>5649659
Interesting... I'll add him to my list.
Now with Descartes. Meditations on First Philosophy is the best one for a theory of knowledge? Or Discourse on Method?

>> No.5649719

>>5647668

>disgusting subhuman thinks he's outwitted Hume

good list OP

Heidegger should be shit tier otherwise its actually perfect

>> No.5649743

>>5647733
>Schopenhauer
>not entertaining tier

>> No.5649748

>>5647660

>Successfully argued something true and never satisfactorily refuted (but debatably irrelevant) tier:
Hume, Quine, Wittgenstein

>Important insight but problematic and generally refuted tier:
Kant, Plato

>Wrote a lot of debatably useless stuff but still had really awesome insight tier:
Hegel, Spinoza

>Tried to solve a philosophical problem and failed tier:
Descartes, Heidegger

>amazing metaphysics but hard to swallow (not necessarily bad) moral/practical outlook tier:
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche

>> No.5649765
File: 71 KB, 600x450, 67b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5649765

>Hegel

>> No.5649770

>>5649748
>problematic and generally refuted
>plato
plato isn't refuted, he's clarified.

>> No.5649777

>>5649765
>not Hegel
haha

>>5647660
pretty good, just put Spinoza in HIGH TIER and Plotinus in LOW, add a couple of plebs and we're done here

>> No.5649781

>>5647660
You forgot to put Richard Dawkins in God tier

>> No.5649784

>>5649770

how would you describe the difference between clarification and refutation?

i see the theory of forms as thoroughly refuted

>> No.5649790

>>5649777

Yes, sorry for wanting to read texts that aren't incoherent gibberish

>> No.5649792

>>5649784
Not that guy.
>clarification
Making someone's arguments and concepts more easily understood.
>refutation
Proving someone else's arguments invalid or their concepts, incoherent.

>> No.5649799

>>5649790
>Hegel
>incoherent gibberish
I don't understand why so many people think this.
>I didn't get it, it must be absolutely nonsensical
Maybe you just didn't get it.

>> No.5649808

>>5649415
It's gone. The third one will be up next week.

>> No.5649809

>>5649799

>Maybe you just didn't get it.

Yeah, maaaaaan, you're just not like, feeling the text duuuuuude, you're just projecting the symbols and not the inner holistic context brooooooo

Actually, no. Hegel was a hack and you're a fag

>> No.5649823

>>5649790
Hegel is only incoherent if you don't understand his terminology and method of reasoning. If you're familiar with Berkeley and Kant, and you start Hegel with The Science of Logic, you will not have any clarity issues. A lot of people start by reading Hegel's works which don't include solid definition of the terms, therein lies the issue.

>> No.5649835

>>5649792

i agree with that distinction

and i put Plato's forms firmly in the refuted category, they are incoherent, all that is needed is the Third Man argument, which Plato himself mentions

this is why i think Plato has great insight but his ideas are refuted, he doesn't mean to put forth the answers, just to bring to mind important questions

maybe thats why the other guy says its better to say he was clarified instead of refuted

>> No.5649844

>>5649809

you should read the science of logic

i kind of thought the same thing you did before i read it, but i do think Hegel says some interesting shit about contradictions in the science of logic

still have no idea what the point of the phenomenology of spirit is

>> No.5649994

>>5647715
I agree. In fact Hume arguments are still solid rejections to Kant's.

>> No.5650003

>>5649844
Phenomenology of the Spirit is Hegel's philosophy of mind, in fact Geist would be better translated as "mind' in that title, and sometimes is.

>> No.5650010

>>5649994
Kant is not an antipode of Hume, he is a synthesis of Hume and rationalism.

>> No.5650055
File: 43 KB, 250x300, 1411405047585.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5650055

>>5647660
>Wittgenstein in God tier
>Bertrand Russell in shit tier
Does not compute.

>> No.5650286

>>5650055
thats because your dumb

>> No.5650672

>>5647697
SARTRE? professional bulshitter the only thing he was. Sartre is lower that shit tier.

>> No.5650681

>>5647660
>Aristotle
>low tier

>Spinoza
>not high tier

You wut m8

>> No.5650687
File: 25 KB, 400x315, spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5650687

>>5650681
>Spinoza
>anything but god tier

>> No.5650692

>>5647673
>Locke
>not worth mentioning
>implying you've even read anything by him

>> No.5650694

>>5650672

>I've never read Sartre

>> No.5650731

>>5650694
>epek meme bruh...
I've read a lot of Sartre...I used to really like him but then I realized he goes on and on with the same shit and never gets anywhere. He was just good at making you think he was smart.

>> No.5650762

Someone please tell me why I should give a fuck about Hegel.

>> No.5650770

>>5647733
Rousseau is cool even if I disagree with a lot of his conclusions

Voltaire and SiInger are also not bad

>> No.5650772

>>5650692
Why would I read someone who's not worth mentioning?

>> No.5650773

>>5649379
He also has a vehement anti-Christian in there so I think it's pretty balanced

>> No.5650775

>>5650772
Why would you conclude something about a philosopher's ideas without having read them?

>> No.5650777

>>5650694
All of his good ideas were taken from Husserl and Heidegger.

>> No.5650781

>>5650775
Because I have become familiar with their ideas via other sources.

>> No.5650782

>>5650775

This is /lit/, we don't read.

>> No.5650789

>>5650781
What about Locke is not worth mentioning? His epistemology was a major break from Rationalism, and is definitely worth mentioning.

>> No.5650793

>>5650789
You can just read Hume instead.

>> No.5650801

>>5649413
this

>> No.5650802

>>5650793

>you can just read Kant instead

shiggy dig

>> No.5650812

>>5650793
But Locke isn't defined by his empricism, there's also his theory of identity which was a break from past western tradition, his theory of government, and if we're going to go that route we might as well skip to the end and just read Kant and be done with it.

>> No.5650822

>>5650802
>>5650812
Kant said a lot of worthless crap that isn't worth reading, and I assumed we weren't talking about political thought

>> No.5651149

>>5649391
>organized religion
>post-enlightenment

>> No.5651448

>>5650777
His philosophy of mind was taken from Hegel, hell is other people and such.

He's better understood as the literary expression of these philosophies, rather than as a original thinker himself, since said came absolutely nothing which was not unequivocally said before by Husserl, Heidegger, or Hegel . You read him for plays and novels exploring these themes.

>> No.5652194

>>5649844
The Phenomenology is a poetic summary of the life of Spirit.

>> No.5652196

>>5651149
>Implying all spiritual concerns involve organized religion
>Implying Jesus wasn't an anarchist

>> No.5652217

>>5647668
>I'm fucking retarded and have never studied philosophy

>>5647660
God tier list OP

>> No.5652219

>>5647697
>Hume was not majorly influential

Oh dear god. This is the sort of person I talk with on /lit/

>> No.5652221

>>5647733
Another good list

Shit /lit/ stop tickling me so

>> No.5652224

>>5652221
>Christian detected

>> No.5652235

>>5649017
I used to think that until I started ontologizing and ran into Plato's forms all over the fucking place. You simply can't think about what things are without running into the idea.

>> No.5652244

>>5649391
>muh Christian revival
>Christianity
>Christian
>Christ
Plebus Maximus

>> No.5652247

>>5649491
You need to read it this way if you want an actual thorough understanding:
Descartes->Locke->Berkeley->Hume->Kant

>> No.5652251

>>5649597
It means don't trust /lit/

>> No.5652267

>>5649777
>crazy German ranting tier
Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche

>the last useful Frenchie tier
Descartes

>those English faggots that Ameriburgers love tier
Locke

>> No.5652269

>>5649809
>Hegel was a hack

>> No.5652273

>>5647660
>HIGH TIER
>Heidegger, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant

You must be high.

>> No.5652274

>>5649823
You mean, people on /lit/ rush into philosophy with ignorance because them racing to the finish line is more important that comprehension?

Sounds exactly right

>> No.5652277

>>5650731
>He was just good at making you think he was smart.

Welcome to most European philosophy. Spend a whole career defining the problem, never solve anything.

>> No.5652286

>>5650762
He's still the most solid refutation of Kant?

>> No.5652289

>>5650762
His influence on political philosophy, philosophy in general, historical studies, and the fact that his method inspired Marx's dialectical materialism.

>> No.5652294

>>5650812
But Hume is the peak of the road, not Kant

>> No.5652299

>>5652224
Actually I'm a complete atheist and am not as hostile to new atheism as /lit/ is

>> No.5652303

>>5652277
Defining the problem is the problem, anon.

>> No.5652304

Bertrand Russell? Isn't the comedy actor with the intentionally messy hair and really stupid opinions?

>> No.5652305

>locke not god tier
>people on /lit/ actually consider wittgenstein good

>> No.5652309
File: 96 KB, 562x773, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5652309

>> No.5652316

>>5652289
Dialectics are dogma.
Materialism is unfalsifiable.

>> No.5652321

>>5652309
>mixing literary theorists and philosophers
god /lit/ is shit

>> No.5652323

>>5652309
>Ayer
>Good Tier

Just stop. I already told you that he belongs to no Tier whatsoever. His influence is negligible.

>> No.5652324

>>5652316
>Dialectics are dogma.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the concept.
>Materialism is unfalsifiable.
I'm a materialist, but doesn't it follow from that proposition that materialism is unscientific?

>> No.5652330

>>5652321
Then just ignore all the continental 'philosophers'.
>>5652323
He was very influential during the analytic revolution, actually.

>> No.5652334

>>5652324
>but doesn't it follow from that proposition that materialism is unscientific
Yes

>> No.5652337

>>5652334
lol, faggot

>> No.5652340

>>5652316
Hegel is compatible with materialism. He's more of a radically atheistic Lutheran than a theist.

>> No.5652350

>>5652330
>He was very influential during the analytic revolution, actually.
As I said in a different thread to a different poster, too putting Ayer as high as "Good Tier", his BOOK (Language, Truth, and Logic) about logical positivism was influential, not his ideas. He brought no original contributions to the table.

>> No.5652390

>>5647733
*Golf Clap

>> No.5652482

>>5652340

Hegel is more or less whatever the fuck you want him to be, since his unintelligible jargon can be interpreted as far right, far left or anything in between.

Funny he wrote so much without ever expressing a clear, coherent concept.

>> No.5652722
File: 21 KB, 256x256, 100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5652722

>>5652482
>Funny he wrote so much without ever expressing a clear, coherent concept.
>The only thought which philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of history, is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is the sovereign of the world; that the history of the world, therefore, presents to us a rational process.
That doesn't seem too incoherent to me. Refutable, but not incoherent.

>> No.5654486

>>5651448

Huis Clos might be his only piece really worth reading. The rest is shit tier average french litterature with some philosophical content.