[ 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: 27 KB, 300x225, wooden_chess-set_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6607841 No.6607841 [Reply] [Original]

Who, in your opinion, is the most interesting philosopher?

By interesting I mean ideas wise, although feel free to give your own definition. Recommending the best text which expresses said ideas would be appreciated.

>> No.6607881

>>6607841
None of them

>> No.6607936

>>6607841
For me, it's Rousseau. His Discourse on Inequality is my favorite piece he did, but to be honest all of his work is an insightful read.

>> No.6607944

Plato/Heidegger/Zizek

>> No.6607951
File: 185 KB, 640x480, 07..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6607951

>>6607936
>rousseau
>any relevancy in 2015


why are people still stuck in 17-19th century reflections ?

People like you and the marxist are all chains and balls, preventing us to move forwards. Think with your time and adopt the deluzien definition of philosophy in finding new concepts through new problems

>> No.6607962

Zizek.

>> No.6607970
File: 35 KB, 368x400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6607970

>>6607841
Cioran.

>> No.6607975
File: 265 KB, 938x951, 1424306692219.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6607975

Thoreau, especially when he is describing plants and animals in detail.

Pure perception of things without trying to fit them into some theory is the most patrician way to go about philosophy.

>> No.6607982

>>6607951
>adopt the deluzien
vomit

>> No.6607985

>>6607975
theoretical framework*

>> No.6607986
File: 81 KB, 455x607, badiou2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6607986

Alain Badiou is pretty fucking interesting

>> No.6607993

Laotzu or Christ. Those two are the ones I follow the most.

>> No.6607994

>>6607982
Vomit at the spelling, his nails, or are you just some kind of Sokalite? Deleuze is god-tier.

>> No.6608030

>>6607841
St. Thomas

>> No.6608036

>>6608030
this is just obviously not true

>> No.6608042

>>6608030
>enjoying a plagerist
>implying Aquinas isn't just Aristotle for chirstians

>> No.6608046

Alfred Korzybski. Read General semantics (Non Aristotelian)

>> No.6608048

>>6607951
OP said interesting, Rousseau's works are interesting. Does interesting equate to relevant to right now? Not necessarily.

Besides, Rousseau's philosophy of authenticity and critique of modernity is clearly still relevant to society today.

>> No.6608053

>>6607841
None of the analytic philosophers are interesting, they all just masturbate over the same boring shit no one outside of their academic circle actually cares about.

Sartre is an example of an actually interesting philosopher who's works relate to how people actually feel, not just endless premises and conclusions.

>> No.6608082

>>6608042
what are 'plagerists' and 'chirstians'?

>> No.6608088

>>6608036
Speak for yourself, pal.

>> No.6608095

>>6608053
>works relate to how people actually feel
So, in other words, philosophy for plebs?

>> No.6609801

>>6608095
If philosophy isnt relatable to normal people it loses all it's intuitive appeal and becomes literally worthless.

>> No.6609826
File: 76 KB, 807x750, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6609826

why can't philosophy be more like chess, black and white?

>> No.6609855

>>6607993
...are you me?

>> No.6610456

e4

>> No.6610463

>>6607951
The word you're seeking for is "relevance".

And pick both.

>> No.6610469

>>6610456
c5

>> No.6610477
File: 64 KB, 960x960, 1432707407001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6610477

>>6609826
that feel when I'm uglier than this guy

>> No.6610526

>>6610469
Nc3

>> No.6610554

>>6607841
Ideas. Husterl. He wrote 'ideas'.

>> No.6610571

>>6610469
You sunk my destroyer.

>> No.6610669

>>6608042

Aquinas did reject a fair amount of Aristotle's ideas you know ?( eternity of the world and the status of universals to name a few) And the fact of the matter is that allot of Aristotle's works are lecture notes which different commentators have interpreted in their own ways. Averroes and Aquinas had VERY different interpretations of Aristotle on Philosophy of Mind. Aquinas never plagiarized Aristotle either, he was one of the ones who demanded direct texts from the Greek world rather than ones from the Arabic world so that they could be sure to know what it was the Aristotle was getting at and do justice to him.

For me it would have to be John Duns Scotus, for all his subtle ontological distinctions, his understanding of human and divine freedom, his complete dedication to giving a rational account to all of Christianity ( he is one of the few who made a whole treatise to justify the Immaculate Conception and developed tools useful for understanding the trinity), haecceities, the foundation of possible world semantics, the univocity of God ( normal terms are not just analogous to the way we talk about God, there can be common measures) , contingent causality, ect, ect, the guy really made the whole domain of logical possibility and necessity his own. Don't start on him without either a great translator like Martin Tweedale, or secondary texts to help you understand. His prose is notoriously difficult.

After that I would probably give it to Leibniz because he combined the logical rigor of the Scholastics ( something severely lacking in early modern Philosophy outside of the universities) with the innovative mathematical and scientific concepts of the age. Leibniz is tough because so much of his work was just in personal letters, and often that is were he really shines, but "New Essays on Human Understanding" is his famous beat down on Locke, which is pretty great.

Al-Ghazali for third: For being the first to really deny causation since Parmenides, and doing so on much more rigorous and interesting grounds. Pretty much everything worthwhile in Hume starts here and was carried on through other Occasionalists like Malebranche until Hume took out the theological focus but kept the rejection ( or at maintained least skepticism) on causality. Russell carried on this path and it is still an important strain of thought to this day given were we have come to in Science. "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", or alternatively Averroes' " The Incoherence of the Incoherence" which contains the whole of the former book in it with objections.

>> No.6610695

>>6610526
Nf6

>> No.6612308

>>6610695
f4

>> No.6614241

Merleau-Ponty's views on perception, animism, and interactions with the Other are fairly interesting.