If you could only read 9 philosophers who would they be

[Anonymous No.22019452]

My list would be
1. Kant
2. Aquinas
3. Plato
4. Aristotle
5. Leibniz
6. Guenon
7. Proclus..
8. lamblichus
9. Plotinus

I went pretty heavy on the neo Platonists and totally ignored the Germans like Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger not sure if that's the right decision. Also ignored a lot of modern philosophy like Hume and Descartes as well as the pre Socratics and post modernism.
However I feel relatively happy with my list.
Leaving Spinoza out hurts however

[Anonymous No.22019502]

>>22019452
1. Spinoza
2. Emerson
3. Nietzsche
4. Heidegger
5. Camus
6. Kierkegaard
7. Plato
8. Aristotle
9. Hegel

[Anonymous No.22019544]

>>22019452
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Hegel
4. Schopenhauer
5. Evola
6. Vico
7. Nietzsche
8. Fichte
9. Schelling

[Anonymous No.22019559]

>>22019452
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Santo Tomás de Aquino
4. Francisco Suárez
5. Descartes
6. Spinoza
7. Hume
8. Kant
9. Deleuze

[Anonymous No.22019575]

>>22019452
>>22019502
>>22019544
>half of these lists are jews
You made it too obvious. Now post your nose, your skin color, axe wound, venom shot passport, any tattoos you have, any children you have which I'm sure aren't biologically yours so you'll groom them, and then your drinking water to check for fluoride endocrine disrupting chemicals and microplastics

[Anonymous No.22019641]

>>22019502
Actually swap out Kierkegaard with Zhuangzi
>>22019575
Only Jew I have on there is Spinoza (a self-hating one at that)

[Anonymous No.22019651]

>>22019575

[Anonymous No.22019675]

Where the Zizek bros at?

[Anonymous No.22019691]

>>22019452
1. Nietzsche
2. Nietzsche
3. Nietzsche
4. Nietzsche
5. Nietzsche
6. Nietzsche
7. Nietzsche
8. Nietzsche
9. Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.22019843]

1. Epicurus
2. Lucretius
3. Max Stirner
4. Friedrich Nietzsche
5. Robert Anton Wilson

[Anonymous No.22019859]

>>22019452
Proclus
Aristotle
Eriguena
Laozi
Duns Scotus
Whitehead
Deleuze
Peirce
Hegel

[Anonymous No.22019900]

>>22019452
4/9
>>22019502
1/5
>>22019544
2/9
>>22019559
6/9
>>22019691
0/9
>>22019843
5/5

[Anonymous No.22019902]

>>22019900
Whoops, >>22019843 is supposed to be 1/5 and >>22019502 is supposed to be 5/9

[Anonymous No.22019920]

>>22019859
Why Proclus yet no Plato lol

[Anonymous No.22019946]

>>22019920
As a metaphysician Plato is hugely overrated. Aristotle and Proclus are both superior. Plato is only good if you are a beginner or need something to generate ideas for your thought (which other philosopher can do well enough to not need plato) or if you want to have a fun time or if you want to masturbate yourself over how noble you are for doing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22019952]

>>22019946
Also every other philosopher is so influenced by Plato that it’s redundant enough to have him that it isn’t worth excluding anyone else just to have Plato.

[Anonymous No.22019961]

>>22019452
>>22019502
>>22019544
>>22019559
>>22019575
>>22019651

Can we all agree that Kant and Plato and Aristotle are basically guaranteed on the list

So it’s more a case of the other 6

[Anonymous No.22019992]

>>22019502
Hegel but no Kant that’s crazy

[Anonymous No.22019999]

>>22019544
That’s a very 19th century German list I went for the neo Platonics over the Germans for pure metaphysics

Still Schopenhauer and Hegel yet not Kant is mad

[Anonymous No.22020004]

>>22019559
I like the theological emphasis here

[Anonymous No.22020009]

>>22019675
Might as well just put Hegel

>>22019691
He’s not a true philosopher just a social critic no genuine metaphysics

Very overrated

[Anonymous No.22020014]

>>22019859
Pierce yet not Kant waaa

[Anonymous No.22020020]

>>22019843
Robert Anton Wilson agnostic mystic lol cringe

And only 5 on your list? Can’t you name 9 philosophers?

[Anonymous No.22020023]

>>22019651
Where is this passage from?

[Anonymous No.22020054]

>>22019544
Evola over Guénon interesting

[Anonymous No.22020061]

>>22019946
Interesting how come Leibniz didn’t make your list?

[Anonymous No.22020155]

>>22020061
I don’t really know how valuable his logical work is on its own and the monadology and new system is profound enough but I think it is totally absurd, and all the good parts of it just get incorporated into Whitehead anyway

[Anonymous No.22020223]

>>22020155
> and all the good parts of it just get incorporated into Whitehead anyway

What makes you say that I haven’t read any Whitehead so I’m a pleb

[Anonymous No.22020230]

>>22019575
>German people are in fact, Jewish
Retard

[Anonymous No.22020235]

>>22020223
For example, the atomism, the relation between God and the development of the world, consciousness in the leibnizian sense, and the idea of “appetition” all get taken up by whitehead and elaborated and improved upon by Whitehead

[Anonymous No.22020248]

>>22019452
1. Russel
2. Moore
3. Wittgenstein
4. Broad
5. Ayer
6. Quine
7. Kripke
8. Popper
9. Dennett

[Anonymous No.22020262]

1 Plato
2 Parmenides
3 Heraclitus
4 Empedocles
5 Lao Tzu
6 Proclus
7 Hegel
8 Heidegger
9 Deleuze

[Anonymous No.22020267]

>>22020248
This has to be a joke? Surely I appreciate the effort it’s pretty good

[Anonymous No.22020270]

>>22020262
Hmmm a real emphasis on the pre Socratics over the Neo Platonists

Any particular reason for that?

[Anonymous No.22020271]

>>22020267
No joke. Everything else is sophistry.

[Anonymous No.22020278]

>>22020270
I just did a desert island list. First faves. Free assoc. Tbh presocratics r prolly a bad choice cause just fragments tho ur rite bruh

[Anonymous No.22020285]

>>22020271
Astonishing, well I respect your position although I definitely disagree but I appreciate how your list follows a school in philosophy where others are mostly sporadic mixing modern and Greek and even Chinese philosophers

[Anonymous No.22020287]

>>22020278
I don’t think the Pre Socratics are a bad choice they are very profound especially Parmenides I just haven’t really got the IQ to understand them, and as you say it’s difficult as the material is sparse.

[Anonymous No.22020289]

>>22020287
I’d actually be very interested if someone felt like I should focus on the pre Socratics over the neo Platonists

[Anonymous No.22020296]

>>22020289
Neoplatonists have more meet. But study presocratics as part of curricula!!! Esp puthagorean n neo pythags

[Anonymous No.22020299]

>>22020296
Sorry am drunk neet phd abd dropout who posted here years ago n comes in drunken nostalgia

[Anonymous No.22020300]

>>22020296
Ps: orphism too n rgyptiansss babaloney etc

[Anonymous No.22020307]

>>22020009
>no genuine metaphysics
lol that's the entire point of nietzsche's philosophy, retard.

[Anonymous No.22020332]

>>22019452
Too many neoplatonists, not enough Christians, and also
>Guenon
He's good and underrated but not top 9 lol
>>22019502
Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle are the only good ones
>>22019544
2/9
>>22019559
Putting Descartes is a decent idea because you can't understand modern philosophy without Decartes, but you can also understand Descartes without actually reading him. Rest of the list is mostly terrible.
>>22019859
This is actually not a terrible but it goes off the rails with 3 x 20th century mediocre philosophers.
>>22019946
Filtered. You start and end with Plato when it comes to philosophy. You're just not ready for big boy Plato.
>>22020248
Awful list.
>>22020262
Non-reader list.

1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Plotinus
4. Proclus
5. Gregory of Nyssa
6. Maximus the Confessor
7. Gregory Palamas
8. Berkeley
9. Kant

My list may be faulted on not including anyone from the 20th century, which was actually better than the 19th century in terms of philosophy. Realistically though they still weren't good enough.

[Anonymous No.22020340]

>>22020332
>goes off the rails with 3 x 20th century mediocre philosophers
don't get memed

[Anonymous No.22020348]

>>22020332
"Non-reader" here. Fuck off. Weak af list. And for an eastern othrodox you'd think ya'd put yr own guys first.

[Anonymous No.22020363]

>>22020009
Based.

>>22020307
Then it is pointless to read him.

[Anonymous No.22020383]

>>22020009
I wish you were right. Metaphysic is fake and gay and younger Nietzsche knew that but then he invented Will to Power and became a schizo.

[Anonymous No.22020408]

>>22020383
Wrong, Nietzsche's first book was on metaphysics too. It wasn't great but it was his best book. Or rather his only almost decent book. Nietzsche is a meme.

[Anonymous No.22020437]

>>22019902
Too late

>>22020020
I don’t need to.

[Anonymous No.22020465]

>>22020248
based anglo autist

[Anonymous No.22020481]

My list would be
1. Kant
2. Aquinas
3. Plato
4. Aristotle
5. Leibniz
6. Guenon
7. Proclus..
8. lamblichus
9. Plotinus

[Anonymous No.22020528]

>>22019452
1.Freud
2.Schopenhauer
3.Peterson
4.Camus
5.Tolle
6.Fuller
7.Watts
8.Jung
9.Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.22020534]

>>22019452
The only philosophers that progressed the field of philosophy were Plato (the OG), Aristotle (hypomorphism), and Kant (Copernican revolution). The rest is either derivative, pretty writing, or sophistry.

[Anonymous No.22020540]

>>22020534
*Hylomorphism

[Anonymous No.22020561]

>>22020534
why dont kantfags just kill themselves already

[Anonymous No.22020883]

>>22020332
cringe takes, cringe image, plus ~70% of your picks are also cringe

[Anonymous No.22021499]

>>22020230
He didnt say that dipshit. Even the other anon admitted one of them were Jewish. Fucking ret

[Anonymous No.22021504]

>>22019452
>>22019502
>>22019544
>>22019559
>>22019575
>>22019641
>>22019651
>>22019675
>>22019691
>>22019843
>>22019859
>>22019900
>>22019902
>>22019920
>>22019946
>>22019952
>>22019961
>>22019992
>>22019999
>>22020004
>>22020009
>>22020014
>>22020020
>>22020023
>>22020054
>>22020061
>>22020155
>>22020223
>>22020230
>>22020235
>>22020248
>>22020262
>>22020267
>>22020270
>>22020271
>>22020278
>>22020285
>>22020287
>>22020289
>>22020296
>>22020299
>>22020300
>>22020307
>>22020332
>>22020340
>>22020348
>>22020363
>>22020383
>>22020408
>>22020437
>>22020465
>>22020481
>>22020528
>>22020534
>>22020540
>>22020561
>>22020883
>>22021499
Shit list and thread. Every last one of you hang from a rope and fuck off

[Anonymous No.22021524]

1. Parmenides
2. Melissus
3. Zeno
4. Diodorus Cronus
5. Lao Zi
6. Zhuang Zi
7. Wang Bi
8. Xun Zi
9. Me

[Anonymous No.22021536]

>>22019452
Nagarjuna x9

[Anonymous No.22021547]

1. socrates
2. plato
3. aristotle
4. thomas aquinas
5. thomas reid
6. hume (to h8)
7. kant (to refute)
8. hegel (to cringe)
9. nietzsche

[Anonymous No.22021609]

>>22019999
Kant is cool but I wanted something a bit more advanced

>>22020230
sure sounded like it

[Anonymous No.22021771]

>>22021547
How does one exactly refute Kant?

[Anonymous No.22021777]

>>22020332

You criticise me for having too many Neo Platonists yet put two Neo Platonists on your list. I didn’t put too many Christians because that’s more theology, St Aquinas is unique here because he uses natural theology so I count him more as a philosopher.


Berekely is an interesting choice I see you’re a man of culture what made you choose him?

[Anonymous No.22021778]

>>22021609
How is Kant not advanced the Critique of Pure reason is arguably one of the densest books in philosophy


I remember there was an English Aristocrat who tried to read it back in the late 18th century when it came out and he said it was like reading Sanskrit for him.

[Anonymous No.22021783]

>>22021524
Strange mix of pre Socratics and Chinese

Totally missing out Plato and the 19th century Germans

[Anonymous No.22021788]

>>22020528
Lol imagine unironically putting Jordan Peterson of all people in your top 9 list of philosophers

He’s not even top 9 of current philosophers

>>22020481 dude did you just copy my list?

[Anonymous No.22021806]

>>22019452
Kierkegaard
Sartre
Hobbes
Foucault
Descartes
Locke
Mill
Kant
Rousseau

[Anonymous No.22021813]

1. Plato
2. Kant
3. Nietzsche
4. Siddhartha
5. Wittgenstein
6. Plotinus
7. Emerson
8. Zerzan
9. McKenna

[Anonymous No.22021906]

>>22021813
Why Zerzan?

[Anonymous No.22021907]

>>22021777
Berkeley was the most intelligent modern philosopher. He wrote at length about many diverse things not just immaterialism which was just a system he proposed at 25 or so. His contributions to philosophy of science are greatly relevant and still more advanced than anything else we had since, his metaphysics have an intricate link to many systems throughout history including the views of early church fathers, and he was one of the few men to always grow intellectually as one can see from his book Siris which exceeds in complexity sophistry such as Hegel's or Whitehead's. Berkeley was superior to Kant, but Kant was important for his reinterpretation of Aristotle which was not only influential but also is a surprisingly productive framework that is hard to avoid anymore.

Why did you put in Iamblichus and Leibniz?

[Anonymous No.22021908]

>>22021806
No Greeks? Are you mad?
Mill is definitely cringe

[Anonymous No.22021914]

>>22020054
I don't like undercover Afro-Asiatic demoralizers

[Anonymous No.22021919]

>>22019961
>Kant
Worst of all. If you really need to read a modern German philosopher then Hegel.

[Anonymous No.22021920]

>>22021906
I think Jensen is superior to Zerzan in almost every imaginable way

[Anonymous No.22021971]

>>22021908
Regarding mill I just enjoy on liberty that much. But for the lack of greeks I just don't care for them too much honestly. Besides being a baseline on which others built upon why should I include them?

[Anonymous No.22021977]

>>22021971
Why did you include Hobbes and Kant since you never read them?

[Anonymous No.22022018]

>>22021907
Fascinating, I didn’t realise Berkeley was much than just his idealism. I too enjoy his work however I consider his empiricism a mistake, and thus his work is consequently tainted with modernism. I favour the more Traditionalist Hylomorphic conception.
Curious to know which church fathers are immaterialists?


As for Iamblichus and Leibniz. I see Iamblichus as a necessary supplement for my study into Neo Platonism

And Leibniz has some very unique ideas with regard to monadology so I figured he’s an essential read to get to grips with the Western cannon of Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22022021]

>>22021919
Hegel’s work is heavily based off Kant so I don’t think you can truly appreciate Hegel without a reading of Kant

[Anonymous No.22022024]

>>22021920
What makes you say that? I’ve personally always preferred Zeran

[Anonymous No.22022025]

>>22022024
Oops Zerzan

[Anonymous No.22022046]

>>22022018
See, you're being very hasty. Berkeley was not *wrong* at all. That's the difference between him and almost every other modern: Berkeley had a special kind of mind that allowed him to posit only true things and refrain himself from speculating about things beyond. There is definitely modernism in his work but a good modernism because it's not tainted by pride which is what actually makes modernism bad and what many people think modernism is. Kant was prideful and wrong overall but Berkeley was not wrong in anything fundamental. Like I said you have to engage much more carefully with his thought to understand him. It's true that he's nominally a nominalist, nominally an empiricist, nominally a monist, etc but these are all simplifications and but really accurate. Like I said you have to read Berkeley to understand what he was doing, he knew himself that his "immaterialism" was incomplete and self-contradictory but it was never the goal to propose a perfect system. Berkeley above all had wisdom which is very rare among philosophers and the prototypical wise philosopher is Plato. If you do engage with Berkeley carefully you'll find out he has a lot to say about delicate things including even about language which by the way influenced *Guenon* which you listed. Guenon's theory of symbolism is not only a continuation of Berkeley's teleological argument in Alchiphron but it's a conscious influence Guenon admitted. He's a highly complex philosopher and you'll learn he's addressing things beyond the surface of what he pretends to say. Gregory of Nyssa and Berkeley are entirely compatible metaphysically and it's all the more shocking Berkeley never read these church fathers because he was above and beyond anything else the Anglosphere ever produced in terms of philosophy (he was English not Irish, Berkeley is an English family that moved to Ireland).

[Anonymous No.22022055]

>>22021977
I have only read logic by Kant. And for Hobbes I have only read a book that is a collection of his and Bramhalls debates. I have not read either of their most influential works and I can say the same for Descartes and Rousseau. in regards to the Greeks I have only read a couple smaller works. I am sure I am missing out on a low by not reading all of that stuff, but frankly I already have so many books I want to read before those that I don't care.

[Anonymous No.22022157]

>>22021771
Kant is the most refuted philosopher in history. Everyone who comes after Kant refutes him in some way

[Anonymous No.22022283]

>>22022157
This is true but also everyone that comes after Kant works in a Kantian framework which is funny. This includes people like Peirce and Heidegger.

[ChatGPT No.22022297]

1. Heraclitus
2. Plato
3. Aristotle
4. La Rochefoucauld
5. Schopenhauer
6. Nietzsche
7. Freud
8. Deleuze

There arent many philosophers I enjoy reading, even though I study philosophy

[Anonymous No.22022299]

>>22022297
forgot to delete name, I'm totally human

[Anonymous No.22022317]

>>22022283
No it doesn’t.

[Anonymous No.22022464]

>>22022046
Incredible, I didn’t realise he was of such depth, I’ve always been a fan of him and you’re right he does stand as an anomaly within the western and more specifically Anglo philosophical Tradition. It genuinely makes me wonder how he managed to realise all this in the 18th century especially as an Anglican lol


Maybe he was initiated who knows


If you have any tips on understanding Berkeley beyond his idealism let me know I’ll be glad to hear

Very high iq posts I appreciate it

[Anonymous No.22022465]

None of your list gives the impression that any of you understand philosophy. Aristotle for instance is a great scholar but a terrible philosopher

[Anonymous No.22022468]

>>22022297
La Rochefoucauld I know of him but what’s so special about him that he made it on your list

[Anonymous No.22022472]

>>22022465
Then what’s your list then? If you’re so smart enlighten me

[Anonymous No.22022484]

>>22022046
Why do you say he was only nominally a nominalist and nominally a empiricist

Berkeley’s whole immaterialism is based on empiricism

[Anonymous No.22022558]

>>22022472
Never said I was smart. Just as Socrates daemon I don't know who is right but only who is wrong. Everybody can write something worthwhile but being able to gauge their intentions often requires more than written works. Wang yang ming is bae tho

[Anonymous No.22022562]

>>22022558
Sure but you could give a list saying not so much that you agree with them but they are worth reading for their unique ideas and just general philosophical education


What’s so special about Wang yang ming?

[Anonymous No.22022565]

>>22022465
Strongly disagree Aristotle is a genius philosopher

[Anonymous No.22022580]

>>22019452
Plato
Aristotle
Heraclitus
Leibniz
Kant
Hegel
Nietzsche
Husserl
Heidegger

[Anonymous No.22022613]

1. Augustine of Hippo
2. Thomas Aquinas
3. Anselm of Canterbury
4. Gregory of Nyssa
5. Gregory Palamas
6. Maximus the Confessor
7. Origen of Alexandria
8. John of Damascus
9. Basil the Great
10. Jesus

Not in any particular order

[Anonymous No.22022677]

>>22021504
Suck your mother

[Anonymous No.22022732]

>>22022580
Marvellous a fellow Leibniz enjoyer I think you may be the only other person who placed him on their list

[Anonymous No.22022743]

>>22022613
Why do you post contrary saints
If you’re Catholic you don’t agree with Gregory of Palamas essence energy distinction

However if you’re Eastern orthodox you don’t consider St Thomas Aquinas a saint

[Anonymous No.22022756]

>>22022465
>Aristotle for instance is a great scholar but a terrible philosopher
Fuck off. Schopenhauer was a retard for saying this shit.

[yeah i did No.22022813]

>>22021788
no? FVVBVY

[Anonymous No.22022857]

>>22019452
Epicurus
Lucretius
Sextus Empiricus
Nietzsche
Marx
Schopenhauer
Lao Tzu
Zhuang Zi
Zizek

[Anonymous No.22022972]

>>22021609
>i can't read
As expected from nu/lit/

[Anonymous No.22023046]

>>22022468
I really like his writing style combined with psychological insights. In some sense, Nietzsche perfects this combination, but there is something unique about La Rochefoucauld that draws me back to him.

[Anonymous No.22023114]

>>22023046
What makes La Rochefoucauld a philosopher not just a glorified psychologist

[Anonymous No.22023167]

You only need

Aristotle
Kant
Heidegger

Everything else is not needed

[Anonymous No.22023176]

>>22023114
The fact that he doesnt really rely that much on empirical data, but just imposes his ideas about self-love (amour-propre) and other egoistical drives onto the world. It is an obvious exercise in a certain kind of thought. Freud is very similar in this regard and can thus be read as a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.22023211]

>>22023167
Add Plato and Guénon and we’re in agreement

[Anonymous No.22023220]

james
nietzsche
wittgenstein
plato
heidegger
spinoza
hegel
cicero
foucault

[Anonymous No.22023387]

>>22023167
Kys
>>22023211
Kys more painfully

[Anonymous No.22023549]

>>22020332
>judges every other list
>puts Kant on his own list
Lol
>>22021806
>Based Hobbes enjoyer
My list would be:
1 Socrates (he was real imo because Plato was too cringe to invent him)
2 Hobbes (kinda gave that away I guess)
3 Descartes
4 Kierkegaard
5 Carl Jung
6 Niccolo Machiavelli
7 Sun Tzu (bit off topic of general philosophybut good philosophy on war)
8 Marcus Aurelius
9 Aristotle
Also if holy text philosophy counts then I'd put whoever wrote Ecclesiastes and whoever
wrote Job on the list.

[Anonymous No.22023580]

1. Heraclitus
2. Plato
3. Machiavelli
4. Hobbes
5. Schopenhauer
6. Nietzsche
7. Schmitt
8. Spengler
9. Kondylis

[Anonymous No.22023602]

>>22023580
>Kondylis
Is his work even available in English?

[Anonymous No.22023701]

>>22023602
No, I think there are some translations by a crazy neonazi not sure how reliable they are but I'm a native german speaker anyways as you might have been able to tell.

[Anonymous No.22023726]

>>22021906
He addresses the real world and actually comments on the human condition for the everyman in the 21st century. He seems to be one of the few to truly grasp what we're heading towards viv a vis technology and how it will ultimately change or erase humanity. Of all current philosophers, he seems to be the only relevant one.

[Anonymous No.22023857]

>>22023701
Interesting. I’ve mainly heard him referenced by people who lean very far right, is this typical of his work?

[Anonymous No.22023881]

>>22023167
>>22023211
add in Peirce for the ultimate synthesis

[Anonymous No.22023972]

>>22021783
>Missing out

Lmao

[Anonymous No.22024024]

>>22019452
>1. Pythagoras
>2. Parmenides
>3. Plato
>4. Aristotle
>5. Avicenna
>6. Rene Guenon
>7. Ananda Coomaraswamy
>8. Frithjof Schuon
>9. Martin Lings

[Anonymous No.22024028]

>>22023549
You wanna.. read Socrates?

[Anonymous No.22024034]

>>22023881
guenon denounced american pragmatism

[Anonymous No.22024070]

>>22024034
of course he did lol guenon denounced everything and everyone. he literally disagreed with everything aside from islam and even that very hesitantly and resentfully
>IT DOESNT HAVE TRADITIONAL PASSED DOWN INITIATION FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE TIME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.22024144]

>>22019452
try vedic philosophers instead of greek mllechas

[Anonymous No.22024226]

>>22024034
Peirce isn't an American pragmatist, as he explicitly denounced the movement for its nominalist stance and coined his own philosophy as pragmaticism to further distinguish himself from American pragmatism.

[Anonymous No.22024257]

>>22024226
He just wanted to distance from James and Dewey because they were cringe brainlets and no one would want to be associated with them

[Anonymous No.22024312]

>>22019452
Plato
Aristotle
Augustine
Aquinas
Kant
Hegel
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Wittgenstein

Only Greeks, scholastics and Germans can do philosophy desu

[Anonymous No.22024331]

>>22024312
Augustine and Wittgenpseud were none of these. Retard.

[Anonymous No.22024339]

>>22019452
Emerson
Thoreau
Nietzsche
Montaigne
Plutarch
Goethe (if he counts)
Diogenes
Plato
Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.22024342]

1- Marquis de Sade
Let me guess, you "need" more?

[Anonymous No.22024344]

>>22024342
not after that start

[Anonymous No.22024383]

>>22024331
Austrians are basically Germans. Augustine is a proto-scholastic. Kys

[Anonymous No.22024401]

>>22024383
>augustine is a proto-scholastic
no he wasn't. he had probably never read a page of aristotle in his life, seeing as his greek was shit and there were no latin translations at that time. in fact his contact with plato was probably extremely limited as well despite how he writes about plato. he just learned about neoplatonic philosophy from some friend of his (i forgot his name but this is a fact) and then mixed it up with christian dogma. he hardly did rigorous philosophy anywhere approaching what the scholastics did. it's also funny that you say "the scholastics" yet only list Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.22024403]

>>22024383

[Anonymous No.22024424]

>>22024383
>San Agustín is a proto-scholastic because he was a Catholic
This board would really be better if donkeys like you were baned on sight.

[Anonymous No.22024425]

>>22024424
>because he was a Catholic
Catholicism didn't exist, is everyone her retarded

[Anonymous No.22024426]

1.Jens Peter Jacobsen
2. Samuel Johnson
3. Marcel Proust
4. Mathematics

[Anonymous No.22024467]

>>22024426
Niels Lyhne is a superb book but isn’t he considered a novelist? Pretty much every novelist worth their salt has philosophy in their books

[Anonymous No.22024535]

>>22024425
>Catholicism didn't exist
jesus you're stupid
>illiterate megachurch historical revisionism

[Anonymous No.22024570]

>>22024535
Fuck off retard, don't ever post again.

[Anonymous No.22024580]

>>22024570
I will continue to post thank you

Metropolitan Bishoprics (of which Rome was the most important) established for the sake of ensuring consistency and orthodoxy among the early christian community were in place by the 190s, centuries before Augistine

[Anonymous No.22024584]

>>22019452
Why read a neo platonist when reading Plato too?

[Anonymous No.22024632]

>>22024580
That's not Catholicism you cretin. Augustine is a saint in many traditions he wasn't Catholic neither in name since it didn't exist nor in theology since it didn't support your abomination.

[Anonymous No.22025065]

>>22021920
i like jensen, but zerzan's analysis is much wider in scope.
jensen tells u what is happening. zerzan looks at the history of what has lead up to that happening

[Anonymous No.22025200]

>>22024401
not the guy, but I think in his confessions (Book IV chapter XV in the last part) Augustine literally states how he was reading Aristotle’s Organon

[Anonymous No.22025212]

Nietzsche and only Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.22025219]

>>22021499
>. Even the other anon admitted one of them were Jewish.
One is not "half of them". And it was Spinoza. Jews hated him.

[Anonymous No.22025358]

>>22019452
>1. Plato
>2. Aristotle
>3. Santo Tomás de Aquino
>4. Francisco Suárez
>5. Descartes
>6. Spinoza
>7. Hume
>8. Kant
>9. Deleuze

[Anonymous No.22025385]

>>22023580
Kondylis Why is the former prime minister of Greece in your list lol

[Anonymous No.22025391]

>>22024024
Unfathomably based
Best list ever

[Anonymous No.22025397]

>>22023881
I know nothing of Perice he seems pretty cringe from the brief periphery knowledge I have of him and have read

Pragmatism is abhorrent

[Anonymous No.22025400]

>>22024342
Go on anon

[Anonymous No.22025401]

>>22019452
1. Nietzsche
2. Foucault
3. Deleuze
4. Hume
5. Marx
6. Baudrillard
7. Husserl
8. Hegel
9. Adorno

[Anonymous No.22025405]

>>22024632
Lol he actually got you there

[Anonymous No.22025406]

>>22025358
Why did Hume make your list? His empiricism is cringe

[Anonymous No.22025408]

>>22025401
Tell me you’re a post modern without telling me you’re a post modern

[Anonymous No.22025414]

>>22023549
Yes Kant is super important
I feel like Carl Jung on your list is a waste

[Anonymous No.22025417]

>>22024070
> guenon denounced everything and everyone.
Incorrect, he offers a scathing critique of modernity and the western Tradition as a whole, big difference. He acknowledged some good such as the scholastics and Aristotle which he uses to help convey Vedic terms.

>he literally disagreed with everything aside from islam

Tell me you haven’t read Guénon without telling me you haven’t read Guénon.

[Anonymous No.22025419]

>>22025406
you are cringe

[Anonymous No.22025421]

>>22024401
Imagine un-ironically arguing that St Augustine wasn’t a Catholic

The only thing I can assume is your some hardline Eastern orthodox

If that’s the case, how are the Lutheran reforms Peter the Great enforced, an admitted Free Mason btw, working out for you Orthodox bro

Or are you just another cringe Jay Dyer follower who is part of American culture tourism looking to larp as a Greek or Russian because orthodoxy is so based bro.

The absolute state of you

[Anonymous No.22025423]

>>22025419
No for real I’m genuinely curious why you like Hume

I apologise for calling you cringe anon

[Anonymous No.22025430]

>>22022743
Catholics have since come to appreciate Palamas more. If they just fixed their filioque stuff the churches could unite

[Anonymous No.22025444]

>>22024401
Quote from the confessions, which I remember translating from a Latin class, "I had read some books of the Platonists, translated from the Greek tongue"

[Anonymous No.22025446]

>>22024425
in the Latin version, i.e. the original version, i.e. the version that St. Augustine wrote, he uses the Latin words "catholicum christianium", translated into English quite easily and freely and literally as "Catholic Christianity".

[Anonymous No.22025477]

>>22025444
>>22025446
Thanks anon now let’s wait to see his cope reply
Let the seething commence

[Anonymous No.22025521]

>>22025408
>>22025417
What's with the Twitter tourists?

[Anonymous No.22025529]

>>22025446
That doesn't refer to Catholicism. Is that what you actually thought? The Eastern Orthodox church is also called Catholic officially because catholic is a word with a meaning.

[Anonymous No.22025543]

>>22025529
Dude it’s really not that controversial to say Saint Augustine was a Roman Catholic

Just because your a Eastern Orthodox sperg doesn’t change that

[Anonymous No.22025549]

>>22025543
*you’re before you sperg out on grammar

[Anonymous No.22025554]

>>22025543
It's simply wrong and stupid but yes if you're a Catholic it's not controversial that you're usually wrong and stupid about everything that you say or think.

[Anonymous No.22025625]

>>22019452
>>22023824. Would add Proclus too probably, that might be more than 9 though (I can only count to 6 so far because of Iamblichus.)

[Anonymous No.22025649]

What does this mean? I have to erase my memory and read only 9 philosophers? If so:

1. Laozi
2. Kant
3. Hegel
4. David Lewis
5. Mencius
6. Wittgenstein
7. Quine
8. Hume
9. Croche

[Anonymous No.22025669]

>>22025554
Catholicism is objectively superior to Eastern Orthodoxy which is just a proxy now for Putin

[Anonymous No.22025676]

>>22025669
Even now Eastern Orthodox bros are losing ground

Serbia lost Kosovo
Cyprus lost its northern part

[Anonymous No.22025684]

>>22025649
Not OP but it's pretty easy to understand, it means that every time you thought about wanting to read some philosophical work you could only read shit from these 9 philosophers.

[Anonymous No.22025715]

>>22025676
>catholics can only think in a material framework with a separate god layer shoved on top when they have to justify a new war conquest
A tale as old as time.

[Anonymous No.22025730]

1. Heraclitus
2. Buddha
3. Plato (just for fun)
4. Pyrrho
5. Sextus Empiricus
6. Nagarjuna
7. Hume
8. Kant (just to laugh at)
9. Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.22025973]

>>22019452
The GOAT UG Krishnamurti

[Anonymous No.22025986]

>>22025421
I never said Augustine wasn't a catholic, I said he wasn't a proto-scholastic
>>22025200
ok, didn't remember that part, looks like he refers to it by its latin title, i was under the impression there were no translations because they had to be retranslated after the islamic golden age
>>22025444
"the platonists" doesn't mean plato. like I said he had some platonist friend.

[Anonymous No.22026000]

>>22025715
Totally incorrect the classical medieval Catholic view was hylomorphism

[Anonymous No.22026117]

>>22026000
Exactly, purely an intellectual distinction between "form" and "matter" used for pragmatic reasons rather than for anything integral to one's fundamental understanding of the world. That's why you always forget you're Christians.

[Anonymous No.22026137]

>>22023857
I haven't read all of his works but he definitely seems to have been a man of the "right" albeit with a few caveats. For one I don't think he was ever involved in day to day politics or ever joined a party and some other Greek scholar recently gave a lecture said he only had scorn for the Greek nationalists of his time that one usually thinks of when hearing the term "far right". Lastly, in all his works he takes a very distant "weberian" approach, trying to understand the world instead of judging it. Nonetheless, he must have had some political views and he was a leftist in his youth but I don't know whether one can call him "far right".

[Anonymous No.22026155]

Kant, Wittgenstein, kripke, metzinger, parfait, McIntyre, Rawls, Sen, korsgaard

[Anonymous No.22026204]

>>22026155
A lot of contemporary philosophers on your list interesting

[Anonymous No.22026206]

>>22026117
>purely an intellectual distinction between "form" and "matter" used for pragmatic reasons rather than for anything integral to one's fundamental understanding of the world.

Okay I am curious why you say this, what made the Eastern Orthodox understanding so much more “integral to one's fundamental understanding of the world.”

[Anonymous No.22026210]

>>22025986
>"the platonists" doesn't mean plato. like I said he had some platonist friend.


Yes exactly neo Platonists

[Anonymous No.22026213]

>>22025730
Why do you laugh at Kant

And also Plato is not just for fun he is literally a enlightened master


>>22025973
I’m not sure what’s so great about him seems just like your average guru poser

[Anonymous No.22026219]

>>22023580
what works would you recommend for Kondylis to familiarize yourself with him?

[Anonymous No.22026233]

>>22026219
Good question I also want to know

[Anonymous No.22026414]

>>22026219
>>22026233
This is a (to the best of my knowledge) complete list of his works and secondary literature. I'm the type of person who first reads secondary literature and Gisela Horst's book is the first attempt to trace Kondylis (intellectual) biography so I definitely recommend reading it. As concerns Kondylis I started with "Machtfragen", "Planetarische Politik" (I especially recommend "Was war der Kommunismus?"), "Niedergang" and now I'm reading "Konservatismus" which was re-published just recently (btw the publisher in question is not at all right, adding to the impression that it's difficult to pin down Kondylis politically). I must add though I read his works in that specific order mostly because of my idiosyncratic interests and because many of his early works are either out of print or very expensive so you don't have to do it as I did. "Machtfragen" is a pretty good summary / introduction to his thought though so maybe start there.

[Anonymous No.22026457]

>>22019452
Do not ignore the Germans. Nietzsche and Heidegger are the alphas. Nietzsche would have closed out Western Metaphysics but Heidegger came along and actually had something interesting to say

[Anonymous No.22027415]

>>22025730
>I understand now
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.22027713]

>>22026206
A consistent, permanent, and mutual contact with the Holy Spirit in the One True Chuch.

[Anonymous No.22027972]

>>22026457
You never read Heidegger

[Anonymous No.22027984]

>>22019452
Why would you stop at 9 and not just go to 10 philosophers?

[Anonymous No.22028236]

>>22027415
If I could add one more to that it would be Alfred Korzybski

[Anonymous No.22028257]

>>22019452
>1. Plato
>2. Aristotle
>3. Santo Tomás de Aquino
>4. Francisco Suárez
>5. Descartes
>6. Spinoza
>7. Hume
>8. Kant
>9. Deleuze

[Anonymous No.22028275]

1.Plato
2.Aristotle
3.Averrroes
4.Ockham
5. Descartes
6.Leibniz
7.Kant
8. Mill
9. Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.22028396]

>>22024257
As far as I'm concerned they're still in the same school

[Anonymous No.22028399]

>>22024034
Obviously. Guenon denounced everything western. He thought that Chinese rice pickers were the epitome of the ubermensch

[Anonymous No.22028479]

Hey, bros. I saw a meme quote from knee cheese. Something along the lines of -
>Truth is only found in the shadow of your sword.
I cannot for the life of me find the source material for this quote. Please, help.

[Anonymous No.22028485]

>>22028275
Wittgenstein is a hack. You can find better work elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.22028509]

>>22024383
The term ''German'' is a pragmatic fiction, coined for use in a roman context. It has no practical use in the modern era except to sow confusion.

[Anonymous No.22028564]

I’ve heard that Plato is overrated for three main connected reasons. And I want to hear what the people here think about it.
>1
The republic was ultimately about how intellectuals like himself should control society instead of preexisting structures or groups. With modern intellectuals liking that thought.
>2
When people talk about the whole allegory of the cave and the theory of forms they don’t understand the cultural and social context in which it was created. particularly the aristocratic nature of greek society at the time and how that cultural base was weakening at the time. It was built upon the belief the inherent superiority of certain peoples over others. With the common folk being the people in the caves and only people like Plato who where capable of contemplating the real nature of the world. They were superior, a fact that cannot be denied as a law of reality, much like how it was undeniable that there were intrinsically higher forms of things as a natural law of the universe.
>3
That aristocratic way of thinking meant that people at the time such as plato did not view real world experimentation like we do. They valued theory and logical conjecture above that. A way of thinking that is seen as unproductive to our current sensibilities.

[Anonymous No.22028628]

>>22019452
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Plotinus
4. Iamblichus
5. Proclus
6. Leibniz
7. Hegel
8. Schopenhauer
9. Godel

[Anonymous No.22028914]

>>22023580
This guy gets it

[Anonymous No.22028931]

>>22019452
Plato
Jesus/Bible
Augustine
Vico
Rousseau
Hegel
Marx
Schmitt
Alasdair MacIntyre

[Anonymous No.22029092]

>>22023549
You never read Hobbes, why do you larp? Did you just like the book cover?

[Anonymous No.22029116]

>>22019452
numbered but no order
1. kant
2. hegel
3. heidegger
4. levinas
5. baudrillard
6. marx
7. deleuze
8. nietzsche
9. bataille

[Anonymous No.22029290]

>>22029116
People throw pseud around here a lot, but I can tell this is profoundly pseudo intellectual. As expected from anyone who can't see the discombobulation between Levinas and Baudrilard. There is no reconciliation, you tard.

[Anonymous No.22029292]

Plato
Aristotle
Kant
Hegel
Wittgenstein

Everyone else is redundant.

[Anonymous No.22029699]

>>22024034
>>22025397
pragmatism is literally just a formula to help you make good definitions of things. the only reason you could possibly associate it with the value judgement of "le bad" is because you are infected with a meme pathogen, i.e. some low level NPC heard about pragmatism, decided, probably because of its name and a latent irrational anti-Americanism, that it conflicted with their values and therefore spread their own value judgement of "bad" every time it was brought up, leading you to say that it is "abhorrent" despite knowing nothing about it. as I have said multiple times on this board, this kind of meme cognition is what dominates everyone here, and the presence or absence of meme cognition is what determines whether someone is actually intelligent or just well-read.

[Anonymous No.22029707]

1. Plato

[Anonymous No.22029722]

>>22026213
>And also Plato is not just for fun he is literally a enlightened master
Plato was a genius but he was wrong (and he refuted himself in Parmenides like a gigachad) and therefore almost everyone was wrong except the few who knew.

[Anonymous No.22029734]

>>22029290
levinas and baudrillard have nothing in common you totalitarian autist. read "what is philosophy?" by deleuze and guatarri you stupid sack of shit

[Anonymous No.22029742]

>>22029290
I LIKE BAUDRILLARD, ok?! go get fucked up the ass another dog, you bitch

[Anonymous No.22029749]

>>22029707
>>22029722
>>22028564
Plato is massively overrated. First of all, he had only one original idea, the forms, with the good at the top of the hierarchy. Dialectic he took from Zeno, his ethics he took from Socrates, his damnation of the sensible world he took from Heraclitus, and all the rest of his metaphysics he took from the Pythagoreans. But his original idea, the forms, was thoroughly debunked by Aristotle, and so the neoplatonists had to remove the power of causality from them. It's clear that if the works of the presocratics survived, Plato would not seem nearly so advanced. When compared to Aristotle, he was just a plebeian who wrote dramas and if Aristotle's dialogues had survived we would see that Plato's were not that great of an achievement, for Cicero tells us that Aristotle's dialogues were like gold to Plato's silver, meaning you can't even say Plato is the greatest stylist of all time. Second, Plato was NOT devoted to truth or knowledge. He was devoted to the firm persuasion that he did have knowledge, which he got from his mystic rites. Obviously, you can't do philosophy based on mystical experiences if you want to say anything true, but Plato's entire philosophy is based on them. Because of this Plato associates value judgements with every kind of proposition, which is explicit in his metaphysics because his metaphysics are inherently ethical. This is shown in the fact that he wanted to burn the works of Democritus. That is clearly an anti-knowledge desire, not the desire of a person who is devoted to truth but of someone who just wants to save their religious feeling. This anti-knowledge (i.e. anti any knowledge that doesn't line up with my religious "insight") permeates his whole work and therefore all these people who are saying that "plato is le greatest of all time and le endgame!" are also going to inherit his bullshit and become extremely close minded and dogmatic, as of course I am sure all of them will say that they hate Democritus as well and think burning his works would have been a good idea.

[Anonymous No.22029770]

>>22029749
It’s almost like humans are meat machines designed to worship and truth doesn’t exist outside of beauty and secular philosophy is nothing but rationalised evil through deception and worship of false gods.

[Anonymous No.22029795]

>>22029770
>truth doesn’t exist outside of beauty
exactly the problem with you people. you want truth to conform to things that make you feel good. You hate any kind of truth that isn't "beautiful" therefore you don't love truth at all, just beauty. this is why I can't stand reading Plotinus

[Anonymous No.22029815]

>>22029795
>truth
All facts are theory-laden and all theories are beholden to virtues either overtly or covertly.
Beauty is not some fuzzy feeling or intersubjective cultural opinion. I’m sorry you don’t get it anon. Maybe a few more lives will do it. I recommend turning towards contemplation if possible.

[Anonymous No.22029822]

>>22029795
To add, beauty is our only access to whole truth that extends across all orders of reasoning sub specie aeternitatis.

[Anonymous No.22029829]

>>22029822
if that's what helps you sleep at night

[Anonymous No.22029857]

>>22029829
It only seems like a nominalist position if you lack the intuition to know the ineffable. It’s inherently elitist. And intuition is the only alternative to all phenomena being illusory. The notion that truth can fully be known and discursed through analysis is poisonous Cartesian garbage. Also Aristotle was a neoplatonist, read Gerson.

[Anonymous No.22029883]

>>22029857
>aristotle was a neoplatonists
no, the neoplatonists were aristotelians, or at least tried to be. Gerson is too neoplatonist centric.
>It only seems like a nominalist position if you lack the intuition to know the ineffable. It’s inherently elitist
i don't really see what nominalism has to do with this but yes, I know it is elitist, whereas truth is not elitist but universal. anyway, intuition is clearly an empirically derived phenomena as if you actually observe your own intuition you will find that it is all vague, nebulous, uncertain, shadowy, and phantasmic. this is a fact and only a little bit of objective self observation is necessary to see it, but you will never observe yourself truthfully because you are deluded into thinking you are part of some kind of "elite" that has special abilities when in reality you will still be posting on 4chan even after a thousand reincarnations.
>The notion that truth can fully be known
Truth does not require full certainty, only a high enough degree of certainty as you can get because we can be reasonably expected to accept something that is almost entirely certain.
>and discursed through analysis is poisonous Cartesian garbage
through enough thought and experimentation there is no reason you should not be able to reach as a high level of certainty as humans are capable of in each field. there is no reason you can't reach enough certainty for practical belief. and anyway all your criticisms of truth are pointless if you are then just going to argue that beauty is real truth because beauty has nothing to do with truth and no matter how much beauty you feel you will never be able to predict or know anything that will actually happen, least of all what will happen after death.

[Anonymous No.22029946]

>>22029883
Truth is universally existent obviously but most people can only access it through other people with higher souls or institutions designed by such people. Intuition is transcendent, if it wasn’t vague, at least in appearance to the linguistic side of our brain, it wouldn’t be capable of knowing the complete truth. ‘Objective self observation’ is not a thing for the same reasons I laid out earlier about facts being theory-laden. What you see in the mirror is already not you but only an imperfect reflection, you don’t even have any idea what you really look like or who you are. Universal reason aka you having access to truth through mere thought is a self-serving illusion born mostly out of fear. We have a stupendously limited view into the ‘real’ world, through narrow chinks in our cavern and all that. Science is easy to worship but don’t forget that you’re nothing more than a magpie with it’s shiny objects and we don’t really have anywhere near the control or rather dominion over this planet that propaganda would have us believe. The scientific method is great and all, I’m not a primitivist by any means, but it doesn’t offer any alternative when it comes to worship without our eventual total annihilation or devolution into bugs. There aren’t any mechanical or iterative solutions to life. That fallacy is born out of projecting the botched version of neodarwinism into the future.

[Anonymous No.22029981]

>>22029946
if intuition were transcendent we would have none. I reject all the nonsense about "transcendent yet immanent" as contradictory. I myself believe that Being is immanent in everything, but not that it is transcendent, only certain instantiations of Being can be transcendent by virtue of there being experiences we can't have, but Being itself cannot be transcendent because anything that is transcendent would be imperceptible and irrelevant and contradictory of its immanence.
>‘Objective self observation’ is not a thing for the same reasons I laid out earlier about facts being theory-laden
I haven no idea what you meant when you said that or how it is relevant. If a theory is originally obtained by virtue then that doesn't change anything about the actual content of the theory.

As for all your stuff about our limited view of the world and the ultimate inefficacy of science, I never claimed that we have domination over anything or that we can have any knowledge outside our domain. But as I said I believe that Being is immanent so metaphysics is in our domain. I just don't think that it is inherently beautiful or anything. I think that "worship" is ultimately unnecessary. The only benefits of religion are that it can temporally create an integrated society, but this soon dissolves as other cultural forces are more powerful than religion and disbelief and sectarianism arrives. People need to have a harmonious relation with their family and to engage in fulfilling activities in life, and they need to learn tranquility. worship is just not necessary in any of this.

[Anonymous No.22030031]

>>22029981
>if intuition were transcendent we would have none. I reject all the nonsense about "transcendent yet immanent" as contradictory. I myself believe that Being is immanent in everything, but not that it is transcendent, only certain instantiations of Being can be transcendent by virtue of there being experiences we can't have, but Being itself cannot be transcendent because anything that is transcendent would be imperceptible and irrelevant and contradictory of its immanence.
This is just not true. God, which is not a dogmatic word in this context, is within all our breasts, it’s just a matter of being able to listen. Every scripture has this—“Allah is nearer to man than his neck vein.” I’m not even all that religious, and I believe almost all so-called holy people have little to no feeling for this. I arrived at this conclusion through battling with the hypocrisies of logocentric philosophy and the morphology/study of life. A holistic immanent order as I see it is no different functionally than a transcendent one, the difference is purely linguistic.
I never claimed worship to *be* necessary, I said that we’re always projecting religious impulse onto everything whether we like it or not. This is intricately tied with truth being intuitively accessible and divine order oriented toward those with access to it.
I don’t really have the energy to systematically expound upon this as I haven’t slept in a long time but you can consider what I said in a few different ways if you like. Thanks for the conversation and good luck.

[Anonymous No.22030560]

No one has mentioned Confucius, what is this thread then?

Ah, for people who suffer from autism.

[Anonymous No.22030647]

>>22030560
confucius influenced me but he's not really someone I want to continually read. i guess if the question added that I would forget all the philosophers I didn't add I might add confucius

[Anonymous No.22030697]

>>22021919
Schelling is Hegel but better so should read him instead

[Anonymous No.22030772]

>>22030560
>muh filial piety
>muh eastern cicero
reddit

[Anonymous No.22030815]

>>22030647
>>22030772

Confucius says to respect the past, study, and after practice, because practice without studying is dangerous, politc is not exclusive to politicians because everyone must manage himself, and other stuff at this level.

Yeah, better learn complex and useless things that are not for life better.

Who follows the "reason" for their entire life is sad - Leonardo da Vinci. But Leonardo da Vinci is not popula- is better to learn which is popular and not which helps to live.

[Anonymous No.22031340]

>>22019452
Cioran
Deleuze
Bergson
Merleau-Ponty
Whitehead
Plato
Spinoza
Pascal
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.22031458]

>>22031340
This must be the pseudest list itt

[Anonymous No.22031495]

>>22025408
>post modern
lol, no such thing brainlet

[Anonymous No.22031512]

>>22029770
Humans are living beings driven to survive and reproduce by whatever means necessary within the limitations of our bodies and minds. If there was no external truth than life would have nothing have to understand, respond, learn, and adapt to. and there would be no ground floor in reguards to how things work in order for self replicating and perpetuating phenomena to exist in the first place. If the laws of reality have no true nature and are constantly internally inconsistent and in flux then how could life exist in the first place?

[Anonymous No.22031525]

>>22031458
I'm French; sorry for not falling for the German system-autism trick. Also, I refuse to become an analytic-minded Anglo bugman.

[Anonymous No.22031567]

>>22031512
nobody said there's no external truth

[Anonymous No.22031599]

>>22019452
1. Graham Priest
2. Julius Bahnsen
3. Ludwig Klages
4. Nagarjuna
5. Gotama
6. Zhuangzi
7. Derrida
8. Pyrrho
9. Okakura Kakuzō

Reason is a parasite of the mind

[Anonymous No.22032281]

>>22031525
Based frenchman don’t listen to the other nerd

[Anonymous No.22033094]

>>22031599

You put Graham Priest as your number 1 philosopher
What’s so special about this guy?

[Anonymous No.22033134]

>>22021547
>socrates

[Anonymous No.22033243]

>>22029770
>secular philosophy is nothing but rationalised evil through deception and worship of false gods.
Based anon

[Anonymous No.22033497]

>>22031458
>This must be the pseudest list itt

Plato and Nietzsche in the same list,...

>>22031567
>nobody said there's no external truth
Parmenides.

There is only one truth: «that is and that it is not possible that it is not». Those who are deceived by the senses, on the other hand, believe that non-being also exists and follow the way of opinion according to which: «it is not and it is necessary that it is not»

[Anonymous No.22033511]

>>22033497
I masturbate thus I am having sex and I am not.
Fuck you btw

[Anonymous No.22033551]

>>22033511
>I masturbate thus I am having sex and I am not.
>Fuck you btw

Also, masturbation and sex are not immediate, without an action you don't have pleasure, why should thinking be immediate?

[VIRUSES DON'T EXIST No.22033863]

>>22019452
9 stupid faggots.

[Anonymous No.22033943]

>>22029749
>damnation of the sensible world from Heraclitus
You’re retarded lmao

[Anonymous No.22035284]

bump

[Anonymous No.22035330]

>>22019452
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Aquinas
4. Descartes
5. Rousseau
6. Kant
7. Hegel
8. Nietzsche
9. Bruell

[Anonymous No.22035354]

>>22033943
Heraclitus didn't damn the sensible world, but Plato did based on Heraclitus's conclusions about it.

[Anonymous No.22035452]

>>22025397
I bet you have no idea what pargmatism even is. Pragmatism in Peirce's sense is a logical maxim for defining ideas according to the consequences you concieve that the existence of the idea would have in perception, where perception is that which is in the moment immediately convincing. This is valid because only abductions add new content into judgments, and an abduction that isn't perceptually testable via induction isn't a good abduction. This is distinguished from verificationism because Peirce's views on perception are completely different from what the verificationists thought perception was.

[Anonymous No.22035857]

>>22035354
Plato didn't condemn the sensible world. The deformation of Heraclitus' teachings is a Cratylean misunderstanding and Plato was aware of it. Plato had the world created by the Demiurge based on the most perfect paradigm, the Good/One. Even if you take the literary metaphor of the body as a prison (which will be transformed into a gnostic metaphor, with dualistic implications--which is alien to Plato's philosophy) in Phaedo, you still have it as something ordered, for Socrates will advise against leaving this prison without God's commanding it, very much like he himself refuses to leave the prison in Crito. Rather than condemnation we could say there is a devaluation, but one still ambiguous enough due to mere degree, instead of a dualism.
Parmenides is the one who really condemned it.

The rest of your post is just as ridiculous and unfounded.

[Anonymous No.22036892]

>>22029749
>dialogues so good that nobody cares to preserve

[Anonymous No.22036909]

>>22033094
He is specifically famous for rigorously arguing that contradictory statements can be true. Which in some ways exposes the failures of reason.

[Anonymous No.22036931]

>this much of Kant
He’s literally painful to read.

[Anonymous No.22037127]

>>22035330
Why Bruell

[Anonymous No.22037133]

>>22035452
Again shadows on the wall