ITT: philosophers that no one hates

[Anonymous No.17419758]

[Anonymous No.17419805]

>>17419758
Benette Spinozine.

[Anonymous No.17419871]

>>17419805
Looks like a psychiatrist I knew desu.

[Anonymous No.17419906]

>>17419871
would you smash?

[Anonymous No.17419986]

>>17419871
was she jewish?

[Anonymous No.17419996]

>>17419758
Christcucks seethe about Spinoza all the time though.

[Anonymous No.17420020]

Many people hate Spinoza. I am one of them. Most great philosophers are as well.

[Anonymous No.17420223]

>>17419906
Spinoza? Yes.
>>17419986
Half Indian, half (presumably Sephardic) Jew.

[Anonymous No.17420249]

[Anonymous No.17420478]

>>17420020
You might, possibly because you are a reactionary who craves mystification out of fear of what he might find in himself, his people, or his world. But you would be wrong about "most great philosophers."

[Anonymous No.17420509]

>>17419758
Does anyone hate Berkley? Most know that he was very wrong, but still, why would anyone hate this cuddly little priest boy?

[Anonymous No.17420553]

>>17419805
cute

[Anonymous No.17420592]

>>17420509
>Most know that he was very wrong,
Cope

[Anonymous No.17420960]

>>17419805
>would smash while calling her metaphysics atheism the whole time

[Anonymous No.17421088]

>>17420509
>Most know that he was very wrong
Ah yes he is wrong because.... someone kicked a stone?

[Anonymous No.17421265]

>>17420509
Yet to be refuted

[Anonymous No.17421642]

>>17419758
True, the only philosopher so likeable that even someone as autistically jaded as Nietzsche liked him.

[Anonymous No.17421774]

>>17420020
>Most great philosophers are as well.
List some

[Anonymous No.17421877]

>>17419758

[Anonymous No.17421881]

Me desu

[Anonymous No.17423734]

>>17421642
lmao

[Anonymous No.17423739]

>>17419758
But I hate Spinoza

[Anonymous No.17423742]

>>17419758
>jew
>no one hates

[Anonymous No.17423745]

>>17420509
>Most know that he was very wrong,
Moron

[Anonymous No.17423817]

>>17419758
I believe Rousseau wrote some mean remarks about him in the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.

[Anonymous No.17423914]

Rawls

[Anonymous No.17423977]

>>17421642
Nietzsche rejected Spinoza in the end:

>"“Spinoza’s statement on self-preservation should, if it were true, bring all change to an end: but the statement is wrong, the opposite is true. Precisely with regard to a living thing one can show most clearly that it does everything, not to preserve itself, but to become more…"

[Anonymous No.17423982]

Entschuldigen Sie?

[Anonymous No.17423993]

I don't think I ever saw a negative comment about this man

[Anonymous No.17424132]

>>17423742
Jews hated him

[Anonymous No.17424138]

>>17419805
Oh no Abigail Spinoza

[Anonymous No.17424226]

>>17423742
Do you honestly think Spinoza was at all related to whatever conspiracy theories anti-semites latch on to? I doubt most of them would even recognize his name.

[Anonymous No.17424228]

>>17424226
No idea, but one unironically tried to kill him.

Nevertheless, once branded as a heretic, Spinoza's clashes with authority became more pronounced. For example, questioned by two members of his synagogue, Spinoza apparently responded that God has a body and nothing in scripture says otherwise.[51] He was later attacked on the steps of the synagogue by a knife-wielding assailant shouting "Heretic!" He was apparently quite shaken by this attack and for years kept (and wore) his torn cloak, unmended, as a souvenir.[51]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

[Anonymous No.17424297]

>>17419758
>>17420509
I think I found the formula for not being hated.

First, have ideas that can't be easily commodified or turned into soundbites. Popular philosophers all have some simple little idea associated with them, like Nietzsche and his uberman or Wittgenstein and his language games, and these ideas are easy to take out of context and get people to hate them.

Second, write in a way that is neither too obscure/cryptic/incomprehensible (like Hegel or the French existentialist) or too accessible (like Plato, Locke and Hume). Basically, be difficult enough that you filter the plebs but not too difficult that people pretend to understand you to seem smart.

[Anonymous No.17424314]

Spinoza has had more than his fair share of detractors throughout the centuries
He's just fanciful right now
>>17424228
The person who tried to kill him was a Jew though

[Anonymous No.17424578]

>>17424228
>and for years kept (and wore) his torn cloak, unmended, as a souvenir.
What an absolute chad.

[Anonymous No.17424602]

>>17424297
The choice of syntax was always part of philosophy. If you want to have any staying power as a philosopher you have to write in a way that is "almost" incomprehensible but not quite. If your writing is easy to understand, it is easy to put into logical forms and refuted. If it is too hard to understand people will accuse you of obscurantism and your fanbase will be small. What you have to do is create writing that makes superficial sense but requires significant work and familiarity to decipher, at the same time you have to be just vague enough and just obscure enough so your scholars can constantly re-interpret what you said and refute others by saying they didn't understand what you were *really* saying. This will not only make you irrefutable but will give you followers who will feel "in the know" by acquiring gnostic knowledge of "what you really meant".

[Anonymous No.17424610]

>>17424602
For example you will notice that the "best" philosophers all have at least 3 different commonly accepted interpretations and most have more than that. The amateurs always make their philosophy either too obvious to understand or too obscure to say anything at all.

[Anonymous No.17424659]

>>17424602
>>17424297
kek that's philosophy in a nutshell and why i don't even bother with it

[Anonymous No.17426129]

>>17420960
penishead

[Anonymous No.17426161]

>>17423977
So why didn't neetch go outside?

[Anonymous No.17426582]

[Anonymous No.17426751]

>>17426582
i hate descartes and especially the cartesian coordinate system. fuck him
read his passions of the soul and learned jack shit. maybe he should've stop fucking around with Catherine and study more.

[Anonymous No.17426788]

>>17426751
t. didn't pass Algebra 2

[Anonymous No.17426790]

>>17419758
Emerson

[Anonymous No.17426804]

>>17426751
>especially the cartesian coordinate system
based gigaretard

[Anonymous No.17426879]

>>17426582
wrong

[Anonymous No.17426889]

>>17426790
um everyone hates american transcendentalists

[Anonymous No.17426903]

[Anonymous No.17427141]

>>17419758
I think Aristotle even more so than Plato is the one every philosopher after him probably disagrees with but still always deeply respects

[Anonymous No.17427249]

>>17426582
> dude, animals are just biological robots so you can torture them as much as you want

[Anonymous No.17427532]

>>17419758
This man is so incredibly based

[Anonymous No.17427579]

>>17427249
Explain this please

[Anonymous No.17427608]

>>17426788
polar coordinate system is always superior.

[Anonymous No.17427630]

>>17427579
he believed animals were just conscious automata, reason being them not having rational soul.
Aristotle was nice enough to sumbit animals sensitive soul with sensation and mobility but descartes went full schizomode.

[Anonymous No.17427733]

>>17427630
I believe they don't have a soul either. I don't want to torture them though.

[Anonymous No.17427751]

>>17427733
if matter can begin to form a being, it has a soul.
soul isnt "like a ghost inside you", it is the matters first act of being.

[Anonymous No.17427769]

>>17427579
depends on what you use them ...cartesian system makes life easier

[Anonymous No.17427806]

>>17426582
you want me to give her what!?

[Anonymous No.17427824]

lao tzu

[Anonymous No.17429374]

>>17419805
strange boner

[Anonymous No.17429401]

>>17419996
I've never seen that

[Anonymous No.17429402]

nobody hates william james