/phil/-Philosophy General

[Anonymous No.6468259]

Philosopher Power Rankings
1. Stirner
2. Nietzsche
3. Marx
4. Hegel
5. Socrates

Post your own

[Anonymous No.6468269]

what are your favourite works by each?

[Anonymous No.6468282]

1. Hegel
2. Heidegger
3. Girard

No one comes close to any of these three, imo

[Anonymous No.6468287]

>>6468259

1.Aristotle
2.John Duns Scotus
3. Plato
4. Thomas Aquinas
5. G.W. Leibniz

[Anonymous No.6468299]

Jean-luc Marion
Gabriel Marcel
Kierkegaard
Spinoza
Jean-luc Nancy

[Anonymous No.6468326]

1. Nick Land
2. Giles Deleuze
3. Manuel Delanda
4. Jacques Lacan
5. Friedrich Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.6468336]

>Stirner and Nietzsche

Literally meme philosophers.

[Anonymous No.6468361]

>>6468326
>lacan
Trashman.jpg

[Anonymous No.6468437]

>>6468361
>I haven't read Lacan
I'm not even that guy but damn

[Anonymous No.6468448]

1. Heraclitus
2. Nietzsche
3. Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.6468460]

>>6468437
What a stupid implication. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6468464]

Besides Schopenhauer, who would go well with Nietzsche and Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.6468931]

1. Epictutetus
2. Nietzsche
3. Schopenhauer
4. Camus
5. Lao Tzu

[Anonymous No.6468937]

>>6468326

Get out of here Nick Land, I thought you were in Singapore.

[Anonymous No.6468944]

>>6468326
>1. Nick Land

Jesus Christ I hope you're jesting

[Anonymous No.6468950]

This is a good way to discuss philosophers. If you work at Buzzfeed.

[Anonymous No.6468952]

>>6468464
Mao - On Practice and Contradiction [with intro by Zizek]

[Anonymous No.6468978]

1. Kierkegaard
2. Derrida
3. Heidegger
4. Wittgenstein
5. Spinoza

[Anonymous No.6469007]

1. The neighbourhood cat that sometimes comes by my house and we bathe in the sunlight while I gently pet her

(power gap)

2. Lao Tzu
3. Heraclitus
4. Chuang Tzu
5. Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.6469017]

Evola
Descartes
Kierkegaard
Plato
Jesus

[Anonymous No.6469023]

1. Stirner
2. Nietzsche
3. David Hume
4. Aristotle
5. Kant

Everyone else is wrong

>>6468287
*tips fedora*

>>6468299
*tips fedora*

>>6468978
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6469026]

>>6468299
>>6468448
>>6468978
>>6469007
>>6469017
KIERKEGAARD FAM WE EATIN

[Anonymous No.6469030]

>>6469023
Why are tipping your fedora towards me, you neckbeard cunt, most of my philosophers are Christian philosophers

[Anonymous No.6469037]

>>6469030
*tips fedora* m'lord

[Anonymous No.6469038]

>>6468259

1. Lao Tzu
2. Andrew Wyeth
3. Spinoza
4. Chuang Tzu
5. Epicurus

[Anonymous No.6469046]

>>6469017
I would be more embarrassed of the E/b/vola than Jesus.

t. Atheist that genuinely loves Jesus' parables

[Anonymous No.6469067]

Deleuze
Derrida
Baudrillard
Wittgenstein
Foucault
Adorno

[Anonymous No.6469078]

>>6469046
>Atheist that genuinely loves Jesus' parables

May your gentle fedora shine and be ever shapley my humblr athiest friend

[Anonymous No.6469086]

>>6469078
You can suck my dick in the next cycle of Samsara.

[Anonymous No.6469092]

>>6469078
*tips fedora*

I have read JK Chesterton and CS Lewis. I know now that Christianity is the superior system and atheists are idiots. Praise Jesus.

[Anonymous No.6469113]

>>6469092
"I dunno guys, I think religion is the answer so it must be the one with lots of temples in my country."

[Anonymous No.6469115]

>>6469092
Missing Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.6469126]

>>6469115
The man in the pic, John C. Wright, literally advocates those two authors and spurns Aquinas. Yes, Christian fedora-tipping is as real as it gets.

[Anonymous No.6469135]

>>6469113
Or maybe the religion which is the answer is the one that found its way to him?

[Anonymous No.6469145]

>>6468259
Personal favorites?

Spinoza
Nietzsche
Marx
Aristotle

My agnostic friend loves Kierkegaard, guess I should give him a read

[Anonymous No.6469152]

>>6469135
Or maybe all religions have the same goal and should leave behind debates on scriptural authenticity and focus on values of compassion and therapy.

Maybe they should focus less on hierarchy and denomination and focus on the masses whose opinion they hold sway over.

[Anonymous No.6469170]

>>6469152
>all religions have the same goal and should leave behind debates on scriptural authenticity and focus on values of compassion and therapy.

Let's ditch these spooks, and value these other spooks.

>Maybe they should focus less on hierarchy and denomination and focus on the masses whose opinion they hold sway over.

Religion would cease to exist if it did this. Religion itself is part of the power structure.

[Anonymous No.6469179]

>>6469170
Assisting others is what created the power structure in the first place. The spook created all.

[Anonymous No.6469183]

>>6469179
Sure, yes, but religion is the opium whereas oldschool power is the crank.

[Anonymous No.6469184]

>>6469152
I agree that debates on scriptural authority should be left behind, however if God has organised the initial conditions of the universe so that one day I would find him through the christian church then shouldnt I assume that this is the church I was meant to find him through?

[Anonymous No.6469193]

>>6469183
Religion could also serve as a vehicle for people with anxieties about the material world. Those very people with existential thoughts and questioning.minds could be best suited to be religious stoics and study philosophical works.

[Anonymous No.6469196]

>>6469184
I agree that debates on spooktual authority should be resolved, however if The Mother Spook has spooked enough minds into believing he can spook, shouldn't I be spooked naturally following the spook's orders?

[Anonymous No.6469202]

>>6469196
Is it enjoyable to have your complete worldview defined by one short work? It seems enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.6469203]

>>6469193
I would not use the phrase "vehicle". More accurately, it's a shield to defend from nihilism. Those people who become religious do not embrace existential thoughts and do not have questioning minds, by definition they have stopped questioning. They have died, and all that remains is a--spook.

[Anonymous No.6469205]

>>6469202
A little bit. Is it enjoyable to have your complete worldview defined by things you have literally made up? I mean, I prefer a little reality in my life, I'd rather not have God spooking everything I look at.

[Anonymous No.6469213]

>>6469205
>implying

>things you have literally made up?
No

>I prefer a little reality in my life
Nothing is more real than the otherworldly powers that be, we are but a simulation from His point of view

Congratulations for being able to spot patterns in the simulation though, surely you have cracked the code and are on your way to the outer realms ;^)

[Anonymous No.6469221]

the only ones i've really read

1. Schopenhauer
2. Bastiat
3. Aquinas
4. Kant
5. Plato
6. Heidegger
7. Stirner
8. Nietsche

[POWER GAP]

9. Marx
10. Sartre

[Anonymous No.6469257]

>>6469213
>Nothing is more real than the otherworldly powers that be
Yes, for people who believe in spooks, the spooks control them and push the "them" out, making the spook reality.

Be more bitter and condescending though. I think it's really cute when Christians act unChristlike on 4chan. It makes you look incredibly hypocritical

>>6469221
Dear God, why is Stirner below Bastiat?

[Anonymous No.6469261]

>>6468336
So? They are appropriate in the context of personal favourites you fuckwit

[Anonymous No.6469264]

>>6468336
No, Dawkins is literally a meme philosopher.

[Anonymous No.6469266]

>>6469257
Are you projecting this much on purpose to make some sort of point about Stirnerfags? Are you trying to imply that they are all like this or something? Or are you genuinely this one dimensional? Either way your posts are pretty entertaining.

[Anonymous No.6469272]

>ctrl+f hume
>1 result

step up your game /lit/. Literally if you don't like Hume, you're just picking and choosing philosophers to be ideological. Hume is god tier in philosophy and worth reading

[Anonymous No.6469277]

>these rankings

[Anonymous No.6469279]

>>6469266
>maybe if i posture harder i'll scare him away!

[Anonymous No.6469289]

1. Deleuze
2. Adorno
3. Marx
4. Foucault
5. Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.6469294]

>>6469289
>Adorno above Stirner

jesus /lit/ is really bad

[Anonymous No.6469298]

>>6469023
>Hume above Kant
Jesus you're fucking sad.

[Anonymous No.6469300]

>>6469294
Adorno is ten times a better philosopher than Stirner. Not my problem if you can't into him.

[Anonymous No.6469305]

>>6469279
Why would I want to scare you away? I love you.

[Anonymous No.6469307]

>>6469272
>hey Hume what do you think of how this billiard ball hits another and this reaction? Pretty cool right?
>DUHHH YOU CANT KNOW DAT DUHHH GOD IS FAKE DUHHH ITS JUST YOUR PSYCHOLOGY
>oh yeah I forgot...come on, Leibniz let's get out of here. We don't have "dealing with faggots" built into us.

[Anonymous No.6469312]

>>6469298
Kant obviously beats Hume, but I rank Hume higher because he was a much better writer. It's actually pleasing reading Hume, reading Kant is pulling hair.

>>6469300
lol

[Anonymous No.6469313]

>>6469307

/lit/ - Where people discredit philosophers by impersonating them in a funny voice.

[Anonymous No.6469316]

>>6469312
>Kant beats Hume
No.

[Anonymous No.6469318]

>>6469305
No you don't, you love the spirit in me, you love the geist, you love the spook. You don't love me, you want me destroyed.

Don't mince words. You "love me" because you want your religion to use me, but the me you're getting right now, the me that's uninhibited, you hate.

[Anonymous No.6469324]

>>6469307
Literally wikipedia

>>6469316
Kant definitely destroys some of Hume's arguments.

[Anonymous No.6469330]

>>6469312
I'm sorry, but anyone with actual philosophical knowledge knows that Stirner is mediocre at best. This board it's obsessed with him just because epic fedora individualists find in him a somewhat accurate philosophical representation of their retarded conception of the world.

[Anonymous No.6469335]

1. Schopenhauer
2. Plato
3. Heidegger
4. Aquinas
5. Augustine

[Anonymous No.6469336]

>>6469318
I dont know your spirit, I only know the manifestation of you in this thread which is limited to the arrangement of the pixels which display your posts. I enjoy this manifestation of your spirit, I don't know if I would enjoy the actual "you" though, you seem aggressive.

[Anonymous No.6469344]

>>6468259

1. Heidegger
2. Hume
3. Stirner
4. Hegel
5. Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.6469345]

>>6469330
>actual philosophical knowledge

You realize this makes you sound really pretentious, right?

[Anonymous No.6469351]

>>6469336
You need to get shiggy with the phenomenological aspects of life, dawg.

[Anonymous No.6469354]

>>6469330

Stirner is literally the first to get fully into modernism, the translation doesn't give him justice because it uses trashy concepts like consciousness, ego, etc. If Stirner could actually do phenomenology like Heidegger he would be GOAT tier

[Anonymous No.6469356]

>>6469316
>literally awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumbers so he could give Hume the metaphysical ass-whooping of a lifetime and proves synthetic a priori knowledge

How's that missing shade of blue treating you?

[Anonymous No.6469357]

>>6469330
I can also guarantee you miss at least half of the references Stirner makes in his book (which you probably haven't even read). It's actually nigh-impossible to truly understand him without reading Feuerbach and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.6469362]

>>6469356
Is that what your Professor told you while you were sucking his cock?

[Anonymous No.6469370]

>>6469362
How did you reach that conclusion? Was it by an inference about necessity? I thought that cause and effect were merely appearances, David.

[Anonymous No.6469375]

>>6469345
So be it.
>>6469354
>Stirner is literally the first to get fully into modernism
The "first" part is debatable, otherwise I kind of agree.
>>6469357
I've read both. None of what you said makes him a better philosopher.

[Anonymous No.6469376]

>>6469362
>>6469356
Kant makes some great arguments (reversing Hume's snapshot concept of the mind) but overall I don't think his metaphysics holds true. In fact, if anyone had managed to get into German idealism pre-Hegel (not likely considering /lit/ loves big named and meme philosophers), they would know some very solid arguments against Kant.

Hume was actually closer to phenomenology than most people on this board will recognize.

[Anonymous No.6469379]

>>6469375
>I've read both. None of what you said makes him a better philosopher.
So he's just a bad philosopher because he's a bad philosopher, despite the fact that you probably read him because you're a meme anarchist and don't even understand at least half of what he's doing?

Cool bro, go post on your blog/reddit about it.

[Anonymous No.6469386]

>>6469376
How is Kant false? Hume definitely fits into phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.6469410]

>>6469386
What's the fundamental tenants of Fichte and schelling? It's simple: noumenon is an incoherent idea, and Kant asserts it to give stability to his system. Granted Kant recognizes this but his transcendental idealism was a footnote compared to the critique of pure reason

[Anonymous No.6469412]

>>6469386

Difference between Hume and phenomenologists is that phenomenology believes in intentionality and Hume doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6469418]

>>6469410
A lot of philosophers are critical of Kant's idealism

[Anonymous No.6469426]

>>6469379
Cry all you want, but his political philosophy is the one thing that has actual merit to it. His problem was to look for a justification of it in the conception of the self, which is blatantly obvious for both "meme anarchists" and pretty much the entire philosophical community except for this board. As a matter of fact, it's so poorly developped he even had to appeal to the impossiblity to fully understand it in order to make it work. If you want to the read a good ontological conception of the self and the human will, go with Nietzche, like every academic institution does.

[Anonymous No.6469437]

>>6469426
>self

literally descartes/locke

there is no "self". again you show you don't understand the history of philosophy to understand what's being done.

[Anonymous No.6469451]

>>6469418
Sure, I was just mentioning it for the sake of posterity

[Anonymous No.6469459]

>>6469437

I would say that *the self* is a misunderstanding, it's not that it doesn't *exists*, it's just that it doesn't *appear* as the traditional ontology makes it to be.

[Anonymous No.6469466]

>>6469437
There is no self yet he needs one to justify human will. That's the problem when you try to base ideology in other branches of philosophy. Doesn't work with ethics, doesn't work with epistemology, and certainly doesn't work with ontology. Someday philosophers will learn to give it the autonomy it needs.

[Anonymous No.6469467]

>>6469426
I mean dude, literally Stirner is against conceptualization of the self. He believes that is part of the process of self-alienation (self in this sense meaning preconceptual experience). He struggles with it because you cannot define an individual without concept and word.

You're just spewing out ignorant arguments. Like I said, take the time with Stirner, and don't just blast past him

[Anonymous No.6469475]

>>6469467

>I mean dude, literally Stirner is against conceptualization of the self.

This, as I said, if Stirner could get into phenomenology a la Heidegger he would be literally god

[Anonymous No.6469479]

>>6469459
"There Is No Self With Which We Are Identical"

I must confess that if a man is to admit that he looks within himself, and finds anything he can call a "self", that I can no longer reason with him.

>>6469466
Or you could just pull a Stirner and say language cannot describe it, and conceptualizing it is part of the alienation of your creative nothing (e.g., the nothing that is the source of your will)

[Anonymous No.6469486]

>>6469475
I don't know a single thing about Heidiggyshiggy, can you explain for a simpleton what his views are?

[Anonymous No.6469496]

1. Dylan
2. Dylan
3-5. Dylan Dylan Dylan

Because he spits hot fire.

[Anonymous No.6469503]

>>6469479

>and say language cannot describe it

Read Heidegger, start with something like the Dreyfus commentary, you will enjoy it

>>6469486

He tries to go beyond traditional ontology by describing being as a primordial conductivism (but more expanded). He is like Wittgenstein in that regard, only that he revisits it from other perspective.

Heidegger is literally the philosopher that makes philosophy go again towards our understading of the world and not the *mind* as something outside of the world. He grounds philosophy into the world as something terrenal and human.

[Anonymous No.6469507]

>>6469503
Cool, I'll check it out, thanks anon for the references.

[Anonymous No.6469518]

>>6469467
Being against the conceptualization of the self is precisely the contradiction he falls into. Again, the need of developping an ontology to describe your political ideology is already debatable. But then it gets worst if your basis is not only external but impossible to acess to (or conceptualize, fair enough). The fact that you can't define an individual without a concept and a word it's another derived contradiction that he wants to pass as a logical result of his system.

[Anonymous No.6469526]

>>6469507

Dreyfus commentary is called Being-In-The-World - Dreyfus.

It's really good since it has also commentary on others relevant contemporary philosophers to Heidegger like John Searle, and how Heidegger philosophy applies to other things like psychology, anthropology or natural sciences

[Anonymous No.6469564]

>>6469518
It's not a contradiction because he doesn't conceptualize the self, dummy. I'm pretty tired of reading you grasp for straws.

[Anonymous No.6469570]

>>6469564
We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself. We will misunderstand the whole of Nietzsche's work if we do not see 'against whom' its principal concepts are directed. Hegelian themes are present in this work as the enemy against which it fights. Nietzsche never stops attacking the theological and Christian character of German philosophy (the 'Tubingen seminary') — the powerlessness of this philosophy to extricate itself from the nihilistic perspective (Hegel's negative nihilism, Feuerbach's reactive nihilism, Stirner's extreme nihilism) — the incapacity of this philosophy to end in anything but the ego, man or phantasms of the human (the Nietzschean overman against the dialectic) — the mystifying character of so-called dialectical transformations (transvaluation against reappropriation and abstract permutations). It is clear that Stirner plays the revelatory role in all this. It is he who pushes the dialectic to its final consequences, showing what its motor and end results are. But precisely because Stirner still sees things like a dialectician, because he does not extricate himself from the categories of property, alienation and its suppression, he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic. He makes use of the question 'which one?' but only in order to dissolve the dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. He is incapable of posing this question in anything but the human perspective, under any conditions but those of nihilism. He cannot let this question develop for itself or pose it in another element which would give it an affirmative response. He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question. Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation. Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?' 'The most cautious peoples ask today: "How may man still be preserved?" Zarathustra, however, asks as the sole and first one to do so: "How shall man be overcome?" The overman lies close to my heart, he is my paramount and sole concern — and not man: not the nearest, not the poorest, not the most suffering, not the best' (Z IV 'Of the Higher Man', 3, p. 297) — the allusion to Stirner is obvious.
—Deleuze, Gilles, Nietzsche and Philosophy, pp. 153–154

[Anonymous No.6469579]

>>6469570
I read that when you posted it in my Stirner/Nietzsche thread. It's a great read and I definitely agree with it.

Have you read Feuerbach? It's very illuminating in regards to Stirner.

[Anonymous No.6469600]

>>6469579

No, to be honest I've never been interested in philosophy indepted to Hegel (except maybe Adorno)

[Anonymous No.6469613]

>>6469579
>>6469600

This was my list I posted before, so maybe my answer makes a little more sense (Listed from top to bottom in my present curiosity):

Deleuze
Derrida
Baudrillard
Wittgenstein
Foucault
Adorno

[Anonymous No.6469655]

Seneca
Socrates
Marcus Aurelius
I just have a top three

[Anonymous No.6469666]

>>6468259

Nihilist and communists who take themselves seriously are pants-on-head retarded
>>6468282

Hegel contributed nothing but the word "hegelian" to the world of philosophy

1. Robert Anton Wilson
2. Kirkegaard
3. Descartes
4. Schopenhauer
5. Deleuze
6. Lacan
7. Foucalt
8. Wittgenstein
9. Chomsky
.
.
.
.
.
9001. Hegel
9002. Greek/Islamic/Chinese/Indian classic philosophers
.
.
900000001. self proclaimed x-ists

[Anonymous No.6469683]

>>6469666
What a horribly generalized narrow minded opinion

[Anonymous No.6469684]

>>6469666
>LACAN *snif* higher than Plato
>Foucalt, Chomsky

MEIN GOTT

[Anonymous No.6469712]

>>6469684

>posting a Zizek Meme criticising Lacan
>Zizek beeing the biggest Lacan cumbucket

[Anonymous No.6469718]

>>6469712
I know, but even Zizek wouldn't place Plato/Aristotle below Lacan.

[Anonymous No.6469720]

>>6468259
Oh please

>Plato
>Kant
>Wittgenstein
>Nietzsche
>Hegel
>Lacan
>Foucalt

[Anonymous No.6469739]

>>6469718

Which active philosopher is still seriously working with Plato/Aristotle, developing concepts, making new interpretations?

[Anonymous No.6469743]

itt: ultra shit taste

1. kripke
2. plantinga
3. augustine
4. aquinas
5. david lewis

[Anonymous No.6469750]

>>6468259
1. marx
2. lukács
3. marcuse
4. hegel
5. kant
6. (lucien) goldmann

[Anonymous No.6469767]

>>6469750
favorite works:
1. marx - the german ideology; paris manuscripts; grundrisse
2. lukács - history and class consciousness; the destruction of reason; the young hegel
3. marcuse - hegel's ontology and the theory of historicity; negations
4. hegel - the phenomenology
5. kant - critique of judgment
6. goldmann - immanuel kant; the hidden god; lukács-heidegger debate.

[Anonymous No.6469773]

>>6469750
(technically a philosopher)
7. istván mészáros

(the power of ideology; social structure and forms of consciousness vols. i & ii; beyond capital)

[Anonymous No.6469776]

1. Kant
2. Kierkegaard
3. Hume
4. Nietzsche, Heidegger
5. Foucault, Hegel

[Anonymous No.6469790]

>>6469743
Kripke and Lewis, interesting.
Never read em, but they've been in my notes for quite a while although I'm rather into post-structuralism. Where to start with that backround?

[Anonymous No.6469839]

1. Jesus
2. God
3. Ben "trigger-the-nigger" Garrison
4. Adolf "Kikes are Dikes" Hitler
5. My sweet mama
6. Tom Fucking Hanks

[Anonymous No.6469879]

>>6469666
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6470071]

>>6469312
>It's actually pleasing reading Hume, reading Kant is pulling hair.
What a breath of fresh air

i agree wholeheartedly

[Anonymous No.6470235]

>>6469496
I've been lurking for 4 years but this Chappelle reference is an underrated post.

[Anonymous No.6470319]

>>6469739
How familiar are you with contemporary analytic metaphysics? Aristotle is making a huge comeback with all this talk of ground/metaphysical explanation.

[Anonymous No.6470689]

Which one of the early-christian philosopher/theologians suggested forced-conversion/torture of heretics "out of love"?

[Anonymous No.6470736]

1. Plato
2. Goethe
3. Mani
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Zarathustra
6. Ito Jensai (Keisai)
7. Voltaire
8. Nietzsche
9. Cicero
10. Locke

And I can back up the order. Come at me, son.

[Anonymous No.6471630]

>>6468259
1. Farabî
2. Nihal Atsız
3. Machiavelli
4. Ziya Gökalp
5. Albert Camus

[Anonymous No.6471648]

1. Popper
2. Socrates
3. Schopenhauer
4. Kuhn

[Anonymous No.6472362]

1. Nietsche
2. Sartre
3. Popper
4. Kierkegaard
5. Epicurus

[Anonymous No.6472445]

1. Wittgenstein
2. Spinoza
German philosophy spent a century years trying and failing to deal with spinoza and making themselves look retarded in the process.

[Anonymous No.6472535]

>>6471630
siktir git burdan

[Anonymous No.6472556]

>>6468269
>what are your favourite works by each?

Lmao no one answers this because they're a bunch of posturers

[G 0 D B L 3 ß !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6473224]

>>6470736
>Goethe
We Deutscher now

Why post in threads with actual content when I can masturbate my ego here!

Heidegger
Plato
Hegel
Schopenhauer
Zizek

>inb4 Heidegger without Aristotle

[Anonymous No.6473239]

>>6469767
>hegel - the phenomenology
>not the greater logic

[Anonymous No.6473254]

Hegel
Marx
Engels
Lenin
Mao

[Anonymous No.6473271]

>>6470319

>having a long-ass history of metaphysics that shit on Aristotle
>beeing an analytic spergstar and not reading that obscurantism
>better start all over again

[Anonymous No.6473353]

>>6468259
hume
hume
hume
hume
hume/hegel/wittgenstein(maybe)

[Anonymous No.6473364]

>>6473353
I get the feeling you enjoy Hume

[Anonymous No.6473372]

I would list all Marxists but dudes like Stalin are technically scientists so it's not quite right to call them philosophers.

[Anonymous No.6473421]

In no particular order (though I find Nietzsche the most entertaining)

Friedrich Nietzsche
Arthur Schopenhauer
Epictetus
Slavoj Zizek
Gautama Buddha

[Anonymous No.6473481]

>>6468336
Government employees created those memes to suppress actual meaningful discussion of problematic philosophers for their regime

[Anonymous No.6473498]

Why are you guys mentioning Socrates if he never left anything written?

[Anonymous No.6473519]

>>6473498
the idea of socrates. often you can guess where socrates ends and plato begins.