Best philosopher of all time?.

[Anonymous No.18271328]

Is either him or Plato.

Who do you think is the best and why?.

[Anonymous No.18271334]

>>18271328
Plato paved the way for everyone, but Kant set it straight.
I like Kant, he loved his mommy a lot

[Anonymous No.18271372]

>>18271328
Plato = Aristotle > Plotinus = Aquinas = Proclus = Damascius > Husserl > Hegel > Leibniz = Schelling = Berkeley = Fichte > Kant

[Anonymous No.18271467]

>>18271372
>Plato = Aristotle
Plato > Aristotle

>Plotinus = Aquinas = Proclus = Damascius
Haven't read them, why you consider them better than god-tier philosophers like Husserl, Hegel, Leibniz, Schelling, Fichte and Kant?

>Husserl > Hegel > Leibniz = Schelling = Berkeley = Fichte > Kant
Put Kant with Hegel and I agree

[Anonymous No.18271475]

>>18271328
Betwen Kant and Plato, for me its Kant.

[Anonymous No.18271506]

>>18271328
This one was so good philosopher that he even finish it

[Anonymous No.18271623]

>>18271328
Plato, because Kant filtered me.

[Anonymous No.18271655]

1. Plato
2. Nietzsche
3. Aristotle

[Anonymous No.18271705]

>>18271372
>...>Fichte
dropped

[Anonymous No.18271721]

Fichte=Bergson>Langan>Sellars>Kant>Midwittgenstein=Heineger

[Anonymous No.18271760]

>>18271506
flol

[Anonymous No.18271771]

>>18271506
Wittgenstein wasn't even the best analytic philosopher

[Anonymous No.18271773]

>>18271655
I like Nietzsche but Aristotle and Plato are on another level, and you forgot a lot of people

[Anonymous No.18271775]

>>18271721
>Langan
wtf

[Anonymous No.18271789]

>>18271328
I honestly think its Plato because while Kant and Nietzsche were instrumental in removing the general communion from the dogmatic acceptance of the proselytization of humanitarian laws, Plato initiated (or at least greatly advanced) the symbolic relationship mankind has with the content outside. Most philosophers like Husserl, Hegel, Whitehead and Wittingstein are responsible for a great deal of jibber jabber in their works and that helps only in the reader having to impose his own beliefs onto the texts in front of him in order to compensate for the time wasted. Plato however introduces you to a strong dialectical approach that truncates a casual acceptance of data for a more systematic understanding of the ideas we're trying to advocate or at least buy into. If more people followed his way of philosophy than we wouldve been far better off as a species. Aristotle has his merits but his brilliance is dwarfed in comparison to Plato.

[Anonymous No.18271800]

>>18271328

[Anonymous No.18271805]

>>18271771
Who was then?

[Anonymous No.18271807]

>>18271773
who did i forget

[Anonymous No.18271810]

>>18271721
This guy gets it, also Plato and Aristotle are the worst, and Spinoza is on par with Nietzsche and Bergson too

[Anonymous No.18271812]

>>18271789
>Aristotle has his merits but his brilliance is dwarfed in comparison to Plato.
It's literally the other way around. Aristotle turned philosophy from weak and vague dialectic into a proper science.
> truncates a casual acceptance of data for a more systematic understanding of the ideas we're trying to advocate or at least buy into
This is EXACTLY what Aristotle does to the ideas of Plato. There is a reason Aristotle is considered so much more dry and long-winded than Plato.

[Anonymous No.18271853]

>>18271467
>god-tier philosophers like Husserl, Hegel

[Anonymous No.18271960]

>>18271807
Heidegger, Hegel and Kant are way better than Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18271974]

>>18271812
Aristotle can't accept that some questions don't deserve to be answered, and instead we need to contemplate on them. We know of planetary hum as something more than some Pythagorean dribble of math and science despite what Aristotle has to say about it in On the Heavens

[Anonymous No.18271977]

>>18271805
Frege

[Anonymous No.18271981]

>>18271800
Not the best, but at least top 5

[Anonymous No.18271983]

>>18271810
there's nothing about neetche and bugman that you can't find in plato and aristotle

[Anonymous No.18271987]

>>18271853
Bait

[Anonymous No.18272160]

>>18271328
Plato

/thread

[Anonymous No.18272230]

>>18271771
Because he wasn't an analytic. He just paved the way for analytics (who are all fucking retarded, mind you).

[Anonymous No.18272300]

>>18271372
based Neoplatonist respecter
I'd add Augustine, Boethius, Dionysius, St. Maximus, Iamblichus, Ficino and St. Bonaventure etc., in the same second tier
and place Pythagoras as superior to Plato and Aristotle
>>18271467
>better than god-tier philosophers like Husserl, et al?
I'd why anon does but I'd definitely agree with him because the Neoplatonists both Christian and Pagan + most Scholastics don't have the same problems with subject/object dualism and nonsensical epistemological problems that run from the Cartesian inheritance.
I'd highly recommend reading Eric Perl's Thinking Being.

[Anonymous No.18272326]

If you ever read Plato you'll realise his political philosophy is nazism and communism combined.

[Anonymous No.18272338]

>>18272326
wtf based plato is nazbol gang?

[Anonymous No.18272355]

siddhartha

[Anonymous No.18272404]

>>18272326
>If you ever read Plato you'll realise his political philosophy is nazism and communism combined.
Based

Also the Republic was Plato purest work (aka, without Socrates)

[Anonymous No.18272425]

>>18272404
Timaeus and Laws didn't have Socrates either from memory
And they are the Republic's sequels in a sense

[Anonymous No.18272455]

>>18272326
>>18272338
>>18272425
I think Plato would fit better in the right-wing. Not Fascism, but Modern Conservatism.

[Anonymous No.18272459]

>>18272355
Redpill me on Buddha

[Anonymous No.18272469]

>>18271328
>wrong about space
refuted by non-euclidean geometry

>wrong about time
refuted by theory of relativity

>wrong about how a priori knowledge relates to the physical world
again, refuted by facts and logic

Why are we reading this faggot again?

[Anonymous No.18272477]

>>18272455
>Modern Conservatism.
Anon, modern conservatism is an utter husk of an ideology, shambled together from economic liberalism, Rockefeller propaganda and some very, very vague sense of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18272490]

>>18272469
>refuted by facts and logic
You at least had good points at first, but this is pure autism, the inferior kind

[Anonymous No.18272495]

>>18272490
>You at least had good points at first
No he didn't retard, Kant was not "refuted by non-euclidean geometry". You're both worse than retarded and you should honestly kill yourselves.

[Anonymous No.18272536]

>>18272490
I didn't have a one sentence description of how he was refuted so I made a light jest, my friend

>>18272495
>claims that space is a priori known as a 3d concept that retains euclidean principles
>is shown by Lobachevsky that it was just a stupid psychologism of an unimaginative mind
>is shown by einstein that space being conceived as 3d is just plain out wrong
>but m-m-m-muh Kant was still rigth
You are such a mathematically illiterate retard it is unreal. You will never be smart enough to read a physics textbook so you cope by bullshitting your way through philosophy. Keep posturing.

[Anonymous No.18272545]

>>18272455
hardly
read Alasdair MacIntyre, the liberal wings of "progressive" and "conservative" in their inherently managerial forms are totally counter to Platonic ethics

[Anonymous No.18272553]

>>18272536
>claims that space is a priori known as a 3d concept that retains euclidean principles
And where does Kant claims this in these exact terms?

[Anonymous No.18272558]

>>18272536
Huh, that's actually quite interesting.

[Anonymous No.18272578]

>>18272553
First Critique, Transcendental aesthetic of space chapter 1, point 2 "Space is an a prior necessary image". (And the entire chapter is about that god damn it).
First Critique, Transcendental aesthetic of space chapter 3, paragraph 2. He gives the fact that space can only have up to three dimensions as an example of a priori geometric statements which can't be derived empirically by observation.
Just CtrlF for parallel lines, I am tired of searching and translating.

[Anonymous No.18272591]

>>18272553
>>18272578
Actually I can't find parallel lines, CtrlF triangle instead or something

[Anonymous No.18272595]

Serious Q - What's the point to reading Kant besides historical context?

[Anonymous No.18272604]

>>18272595
To stop being gay

[Anonymous No.18272612]

>>18272578
>Space is an a prior necessary image
Nothing wrong with this, it's about the conditions necessary for perception, for objects outside us in this case, even if he was autistic and wrong about how the aesthetic representation of space can be defined, but this is more the result of his mathematical ignorance by writing in the 18th century, give him credit where it's due at least

[Anonymous No.18272616]

>>18272604
Kant looks pretty gay in that picture

[Anonymous No.18272623]

>>18272404
>Also the Republic was Plato purest work (aka, without Socrates)
Don't you mean the Laws?
>>18272425
Socrates is present in the Timaeus...

[Anonymous No.18272633]

Who had the most consistent and well defined philosophy?

Who was the most original and innovative philosopher?

[Anonymous No.18272636]

>>18272623
yea but he barely has anything of substance to say lul apart from helping wit the filler at the start
Critias is the one who expounds all the content of that "dialogue"

[Anonymous No.18272647]

>>18272612
This was not the consensus of 18th century mathematics [according to From Kant to Hilbert :A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 2].
If he was talking about space as it is understood now, there wouldn't be that much wrong about it. But by space he means (and everyone in that time used the word similarly) what laymen understand to be space nowadays. A cartesian/euclidean object. Which is just flat out, demonstrably wrong. In reality space isn't even metric. There is nothing he could say about it a priori because you don't actually know something a priori if everything you say about it is wrong. And everything he says about space and time is wrong. Why give him credit when Leibniz and Gauss made actual progress in our understanding of space whereas Kant was just posturing? Have you even read the book?

[Anonymous No.18272654]

Lao Tzu

[Anonymous No.18272679]

>>18272647
Everyday perception is Cartesian you dingus, that's the whole point

[Anonymous No.18272684]

>>18272679
What if I drop acid every day

[Anonymous No.18272693]

>>18272684
Then you alter your outer sense, new form of sensory perception, that's at least how I think about it sometimes

[Anonymous No.18272697]

>>18272536
>>claims that space is a priori known as a 3d concept that retains euclidean principles
Yes, because Kant was referring to Space as something that is inferred from form by pure sensibility through receptivity. You're referring to Space as something external, which is not against Kant's TI: Space can be whatever in your system if it's something not inferred from form.

[Anonymous No.18272708]

>>18272693
Does an infant have the same Cartesian perception? How do you know that every day perception isn't just a reflection of cultural conditioning

[Anonymous No.18272712]

>>18272679
So Kant just committed a psychologism and said nothing about the actual universe. Got it.

>>18272697
Yes, inferred from empirical habit, not a priori, and which can be broken by LSD, mushooms, and studying mathematics or physics.

>>18272708
This anon gets it. Another good intuition is thinking about blind people. Or people born without any senses besides taste.
Return to Hume

[Anonymous No.18272717]

>>18272708
>So Kant just committed a psychologism and said nothing about the actual universe. Got it.
Yes, you just described the point of transcendental idealism, here's your medal

[Anonymous No.18272720]

>>18272697
>Kant was referring to Space as something that is inferred from form by pure sensibility
This is just flat out wrong though, what the fuck are you talking about? Kant said that space must exist PRIOR to observation, because observation itself takes place ALREADY in spatial terms.

[Anonymous No.18272724]

>>18272708
You could argue that different species of animals can have different forms of sensibility/outer sense. Kant can make room for this

[Anonymous No.18272729]

>>18272724
So what's the point of his "philosophy"? With regards to what he says about space?

[Anonymous No.18272730]

>>18272720
>space must exist PRIOR to observation, because observation itself takes place ALREADY in spatial terms
Yes

[Anonymous No.18272732]

>>18272730
>Space as something that is inferred from form by pure sensibility
>space must exist PRIOR to observation
>there is no contradiction here
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.18272738]

>>18271328
Plato and other gnostics and anti-life philopshers like him ruined philosophy.

best philosophers of all time:

1. Spinoza

2. Nietzsche

3. Deleuze + Guattari

4. marx

5. Stirner

6. Adorno + Horkheimer

[Anonymous No.18272742]

>>18272724
If space perception is contingent on sense apparatus as well as the calibration of that sense apparatus, then how do we go from the signals of that sense apparatus to any description of space that is plausibly universal?

[Anonymous No.18272754]

>>18272729
His epistemology is about the conditions necessary for cognition alone, the space comments are supposed to be about the conditions necessary for spatial perception, you can read the parts of the transcendental aesthetic where he talks about alternative views regarding if space is an external thing as well in section 8 of the CPR, which I lean towards myself

[Anonymous No.18272755]

>>18272742
We do so by ignoring Kant and trying to show through pure ontology and mathematics that certain physical principles are true by necessity. Examples would include the works or Plotinus and Spinoza, as well as much of what is being done in mathematical physics.

[Anonymous No.18272758]

>>18272732
There isn't an contradiction. In order for space to be inferred from form by pure sensibility it must exist prior to observation. You do know that pure sensibility does not use empirical data, right?

[Anonymous No.18272762]

>>18272754
>the conditions necessary for spatial perception
Certain attributes he gives to spatial perception aren't necessary though. Again, if you tried acid you would know.

>>18272758
take your meds

[Anonymous No.18272763]

>>18272738
Leave adorno+horkheimer, spinoza, nietzche and ditch the other pedants

[Anonymous No.18272765]

>>18272762
So you didn't understand the first thing about Kant, gotcha.

[Anonymous No.18272771]

>WHOAAA BEST PHILOSOPHERS RANKING TOP TEN PHILOSOPHY CONTENT CREATORS KANT IS OBJECTIVELY BEST ONE PHILOSOPHY CAN TOTALLY BE OBJECTIVELY MEASURED AND RANKED

[Anonymous No.18272777]

>>18272765
I have never meet an anon as delusional and overconfident as you. I see exactly what it is you misunderstand, and the cognitive dissonance which lead you to this belief. If you were nicer I would have helped you.

[Anonymous No.18272784]

>>18272777
Anon, you don't know anything about Kant. Help yourself by reading the book.

[Anonymous No.18272789]

>>18272784
One day you will grow up and look back to this shitposting with shame.

[Anonymous No.18272799]

>>18272789
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.18272800]

>>18272755
Yes understood, you can use abstraction to nullify the inherent bias of sense apparatus. I don't believe that's entirely possible - there will always be a horizon to our understanding. But expansion of horizon is possible and good. Any specific exemplary works you would recommend?

[Anonymous No.18272819]

>>18272800
>I don't believe that's entirely possible
It might not be, but we are not sure, so it is worth trying.

>Any specific exemplary works you would recommend?
Ethics by Spinoza
Monadology by Leibniz
Enneads by Plotinus, especially the later ones
The collected papers of Godel and Hilbert
Anything by Roger Penrose
Looks into fractals

[Anonymous No.18272843]

>>18272819
Great thanks mate

[Anonymous No.18272906]

>>18272738
being a tranny isn't life affirming

[Anonymous No.18272995]

Buddha

[Anonymous No.18273080]

>>18272738
Deleuze is a Vitalist Platonist

[Anonymous No.18273105]

>mogs this whole thread

>>18272355
>>18272995
retroactively refuted by pic related (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.18273230]

>>18271328
Kierkegaard. Profound thinker who lived the truth to a high degree.

[Anonymous No.18273249]

>>18271506
Finish what?

[Anonymous No.18273366]

>>18272300
Hi Arrus Kacchi :3

[Anonymous No.18273372]

>>18272469
Imagine thinking Kant was refuted by muh non-Euclidean geometry, if you seriously think this you have to go back

[Anonymous No.18273395]

>>18272633
>>Who was the most original and innovative philosopher?
Weininger.

[Anonymous No.18273461]

>>18273372
commit suicide, pseud

[Anonymous No.18273485]

>>18273372
>ignores the entire thread of anon explaining himself
>heh, you commited wrongthink, you must go back

[Anonymous No.18273635]

>>18271983
Nietzsche's project is debunking Plato and Spinoza's the same but for Aristotle, I doubt there's nothing to find.

[Anonymous No.18273738]

>>18272647
>cartesian/euclidean object
Space and time according to Kant are just the form of the outer and the inner sense respectiveley. The pure next to eachother and succession. The reason why he says geometry is a priori is that space necessarily and universally underlies all empirical outer appearances. Everything you deduce about geometry is grounded in axioms of Anschauung. Abstracted from this is then the concept of a surface,point,line, etc. but you could never know what is meant by a point or line if you didn't have that spacial view in the first place,so the definition would be an empty concept. Non-euclidian geometry works with these abstract definitions where you extrapolate curvature into higher dimensions. You arrive at this triangle through pure rationalism, while you and I both know immediately that this is not a triangle and these lines on the sphere are not the actual direct connection between the points, but that there's a perfect triangle that lies within the sphere

[Anonymous No.18273765]

>>18273635
Nietzsche is mainly reacting against the rampant idealism that utilizes language in a way that contemplation becomes impossible. He doesn't disprove Plato, and I don't think Plato believes everyone is a rational actor either much the same way Kant does

[Anonymous No.18273777]

>>18273249
it

[Anonymous No.18273934]

>>18273777
What is "it"?

[Anonymous No.18274519]

>>18272738
>disses Plato
>names platonician philosophers
this is how you out yourself as a pseud

[Anonymous No.18274534]

>>18273395
I read somewhere that he plagiarized though

[Anonymous No.18274772]

>>18274534
I think I might know what you are talking about. If I remember correctly, the psychologist Wilhelm Fleiss had a patient who Weininger knew. Fleiss had shared his theory of Universal Bisexuality with this patient. Upon the publication of SEX AND CHARACTER, Fleiss accused Weininger of having plagiarized his idea after it had been transmitted to him (Weininger) through the mutual acquaintance. Does that sound familiar?

[Anonymous No.18274780]

>>18271853
this
Cringy fucking list all around but that faggot is delusional.

[Anonymous No.18274781]

>>18271328
Adi Shanakara

[Anonymous No.18274785]

>>18271328
Adi Shankara

[Anonymous No.18275223]

>>18272469
To this day science is still Kantian (time and space are still transcendental), so physics is still the subject of time. And Kant is still relevant.

You are wrong anon.

[Anonymous No.18275241]

>>18272654
best book ever

[Anonymous No.18275243]

>>18274772
Yes, roughly, although I heard about there being some tiff between him and Freud around the bisexuality hypothesis as well. May I ask, did you commit to celibacy after reading him? I find I’m trying to decide between being celibate or not, and finding his work pretty compelling...

[Anonymous No.18275257]

>>18272738
Holy fuck you are very stupid

[Anonymous No.18275368]

>>18273080
how so?

[Anonymous No.18275384]

>>18272738
I believe there are branches of philosophy that are not compatible. For instance, I don't believe Spinozism and DeleuzoGuattarianism is compatible with Marxism and Frankfurt anthropomarxism (neither with Stirnerism).

[Anonymous No.18275414]

>>18271372
>no presocratics
kys

[Anonymous No.18275714]

>>18275384
No one cares about stirner but illiterate 4channers and telegrammers

[Anonymous No.18276140]

>>18275384
I don't believe this to be compatible with Spinozism nor the rest

[Anonymous No.18276251]

>>18271372
>aquinas
cringe

[Anonymous No.18276274]

>>18272230
this. Wittgenstein was based af

[Anonymous No.18276305]

>>18271328

Husserl, not even close.

[Anonymous No.18276325]

>>18275368
Because his metaphysics is essentially Bergsonian and Bergson is explicitly a vitalist who replaces the Platonic Good with Elan Vital and the Forms with the Virtual. Deleuze adopts the same Virtuality concept and connects it to the vital force of creation, he merely replaces Elan Vital with a Spinozistic/Schellingian model of the Absolute.

[Anonymous No.18276757]

>>18276305
Why?

[Anonymous No.18276772]

>>18273366
ok thats enough r/lit for the month

[Anonymous No.18276906]

>>18276757
First of all, because of the radicalism of his project, which was to set philosophy as a rigorous foundation to science by redefining philosophy as the introspective study of the transcendantal field. Second, because of the dedication he showed to his task, which led him to restart his project at least twice if not three times during his career. He was committed to the idea that the start was the most important part of any philosophical work, and that if he should restart after tens of thousands of pages, then that just how it is. Third, because of the depth of the analysis he produced. The Leuven archives have over 40 000 pages of manuscript notes beyond his books. Whenever someone say Husserl didn't pay enough attention to this or that, you can be assured it's them who didn't read enough, and that Husserl addressed that explicitly at some point in his notes a decade earlier.

[Anonymous No.18276963]

>>18276325
>replaces the Platonic Good with Elan Vital and the Forms with the Virtual
Not him, but I don't agree and I think neither will most people who've read both. Deleuze hates Plato (and loves Nietzsche, who also hates Plato). And even if you're right,
>Deleuze adopts the same Virtuality concept and connects it to the vital force of creation, he merely replaces Elan Vital with a Spinozistic/Schellingian model of the Absolute.
That wouldn't make him platonist, and every deleuzian will agree with me about this. By using the concepts of one instead of the other's, he's claiming a different plane of immanence for himself.

>>18273765
>He doesn't disprove Plato, and I don't think Plato believes everyone is a rational actor either much the same way Kant does
I think he does, I feel him doing it, maybe "project" was too much. Colli has, however, at least two books indicating how much Nietzsche is to Plato's burial, and even if his intentions didn't reach shit, he despises him, he's (among other things) anti-platonic

[Anonymous No.18276979]

>Oh fuggg I'm stuck in this cave help me Blato

[Anonymous No.18277009]

>>18273934
The Tractatus Wingardium-Leviosa

[Anonymous No.18277087]

>>18277009
What about it?

[Anonymous No.18277282]

>>18271328
For the European continent:
>Apolonic
Plato

>Magic
Jesus

>Faustian
Kant

[Anonymous No.18277325]

>>18276325
Retard take.

[Anonymous No.18277368]

Everything good that Deleuze said can be found in a conglomeration of Medieval Nominalists, and 19th and 20th century thinkers.

[Anonymous No.18277429]

>>18277368
Deleuze is a 20th century thinker, so yes

[Anonymous No.18277461]

>>18271328
yes

[Anonymous No.18277869]

>>18277282
Jesus was God philosophy

[Anonymous No.18277884]

>>18275714
Seething spiritualist detected

[Anonymous No.18277905]

>>18271328
Besides myself, one who is the greatest but also not a household name of all time would be Franz Brentano.

[Anonymous No.18277933]

>>18273738
This. I was thinking of writing up a proper response but you beat me to it. It's weird to think, given all of the propaganda we received about how smart Einstein was (and he was, in physics and mathematics), that we can destroy his argument about "Kant being wrong" so easily. It's almost like he didn't actually read Critique, just a layman's summary or something.

[Anonymous No.18277937]

Buddha, unironically

[Anonymous No.18278016]

>>18277937
>>18272995
>>18272355
Based

(although my heart belongs to >>18273230)

[Anonymous No.18278083]

>>18277884
I hate spiritualism. In fact, Bergson's Spiritualism is just as retarded as Stirner Egoism. If you want to see, read "Matter and Memory" ---the stupidest book i've ever read

[Anonymous No.18278108]

>>18278083
All structuralist philosophy is spiritualism, including but not limited to Hegel, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, etc. You'd know this if you actually read Stirner before criticizing him. I'm guessing you didn't even understand what was meant by "egoism" either.

[Anonymous No.18278150]

>>18278108
low quality bait

[Anonymous No.18278254]

>>18278150
Is that all? Have you actually not read Stirner? That would be par the course for /lit/ I suppose.

[Anonymous No.18278279]

>>18272469
>>18272536
https://philpapers.org/archive/CUFKVO.pdf

[Anonymous No.18278303]

>>18278254
I've read "the ego and its own", not the entire Stirner' werke. Bergson's spiritual-intuition notion---as exposed in "matter and memory"---is just a better stirnerite egoism, nonetheless, both have the same virgin-solipsist consequences: ill-construed and ill-constructed idealism.

[Anonymous No.18278378]

>>18278303
Ok, so you read it but you didn't understand it.
>ill-construed and ill-constructed idealism.
Stirner is anything but idealism. Nor is he a solipsist.

[Anonymous No.18278649]

>>18277087
Wittgenstein tried to 'finish' philosophy, twice, no less..

[Anonymous No.18278771]

>>18272738
>+ Guattari
deleuze had absolutely become a tranny retard due to him

[Anonymous No.18278905]

>>18278108
>>18278378
wtf is your problem

[Anonymous No.18279155]

Let's keep this thread going Kantbros

[Anonymous No.18279337]

>>18271328
>>18279155
Let's rate Kant in:

Metaphysics

Epistemology

Ethics

Aesthetics

[Anonymous No.18279349]

>>18279337
His aesthetics are top tier, CoJ is a masterwork

[Anonymous No.18279362]

>>18279349
So Kant is the best aestheticists?

[Anonymous No.18279381]

>>18279362
I appreciate him for the how technically he explains the mental processes behind aesthetic reflection above all, but I personally found Heidegger to have more interesting concepts to talk about in his aesthetics, as well as Schiller

[Anonymous No.18279824]

>>18271372
why put Kant so low?

[Anonymous No.18279832]

>>18279362
no. hegel.

[Anonymous No.18279840]

>>18279337
>Mataphysics
Poor outside of the regulative power of the Critique in the exposure of Dialectical Illusion. Schelling, Hegel and Fichte far surpass him here. I do think late Kant (Opus-Postumum) does make some interesting strides, and the Third Critique does push him past the sterility of purely anti-metaphysical thinkers. Still, he's second rate here.
>Epistemology
Top tier, perhaps the greatest philosopher in this area.
>Ethics
Pretty solid, better than most philosophers. Still, Kant's practical philosophy does seem a bit forced at time and I tend to agree with Nietzsche's criticisms of it.
>Aesthetics
Honestly, Kant is the best aesthetician of the entire Enlightenment, I do think that he still lacks some of the depth that Schelling and Hegel will later bring, but the CoJ is up there with any writing of the period.

Overall, I'd put Kant near the top of my list, but I don't think he surpasses Plato or Aristotle and he's pretty close to Husserl/Heidegger and the rest of the big German Idealists. I give him a slight edge only due to the fact that he was the fist and built the ground that others later built on.