/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7233424]

Are these the philosopher Gods?
Socrates, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Lacan, Spinoza, Wittgenstein.
Does all philosophy rest as a footnote to these men?
Are you simply here to meme on Lacan, Spinoza, or Hegel?
Do they encapsulate all potential views on the things that really matter relayed in the strongest possible way?

[Anonymous No.7233430]

>>7233424
Not at all. Philosophy is a very nuanced subject, with many differing opinions and views on various topics. To say that a single person's philosophy can "encapsulate" a certain issue would be narrow minded, to say the least. There's no way you can apply the "black and white", "best and worst", "strongest, weakest" spectrum to something as complex as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7233432]

Lacan has like no impact in philosophy, its only zizek.

Spinoza is notable, but is honestly not one of the major players. He is like an optional detour.

Witti is only really a big player if you are into analytics.

the others are fine.

[Anonymous No.7233433]

>>7233430
So it's all relative?

[Anonymous No.7233437]

>>7233432
Well, actually, even though influence is not what's at question here Lacan is influential to many big players
And again notability or being a big player is not what's at question here.

[Anonymous No.7233450]

Lacan is not a philosopher. Lacan did not seek to know or to think better, that's not what he was after, he doesn't care about the discovery of things in the sense that a philosopher, a scientist or a doctor cares. Instead, he speaks of where this desire to discovery comes from and how we created this sense that our discoveries validate our actions.
When you say things like:
>encapsulate all potential views on the things that really matter relayed in the strongest possible way
That's a complete fantasy, that is not even what each individual philosopher was going for, that is what you desire to have, purely. And that does not exist in the slightest in Lacan, that answer you are going for that you think would satisfy you. One could just ask what do you want from "the encapsulation of all potential views on things that really matter"?

[Anonymous No.7233451]

>>7233433
It's more in the way you view what philosophy is. You can't really say "this philosophy is right, this philosophy is wrong", because philosophy is more about imparting a certain opinion one can take. Of course all opinions have their strong points and weak points, their advantages and counters- but it's hard to say one philosophy trumps another. Outside of western analytics, philosophy is something else entirely: for certain sects of buddhism, it's a way of life, a religion, a culture- not something you can simply sit at a desk and study until you "get it". To just "study" buddhism and say the philosophy's beliefs on identity is "weaker" than, say, Hume's self, would be incredibly derivative to everything some buddhists dedicate themselves to for their whole lives.

[Anonymous No.7233458]

>>7233437

That list is like Litterally who in terms of the philosophy world m9

again. in terms of phil gods lacan is not even top 30

[Anonymous No.7233462]

>>7233450
wow how weird...

[Anonymous No.7233467]

>>7233458
I know it is, but my point for including it was to show your statement of his limited influence to be wrong.
Again. In terms of influence, I'm not interested.

[Anonymous No.7233503]

>>7233462
Not that weird, wikipedia has that power to just put everything on the same bucket. Make no mistake that Lacan is not interested in the same things as philosophers. That is, he is not there to explain or even to know. His analysis is a completely new thing.

[Anonymous No.7233505]

>>7233462
weird that Wikipedia is wrong?

Not really. Its very common. That "wiki is more accurate than other sources" meme is ironically itself wrong.

[Anonymous No.7233513]

>>7233503
>>7233505
How about Stanford?
" Particularly for those interested in the philosophical dimensions of Freudian thought, Lacan's oeuvre is invaluable."
source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lacan/

[Anonymous No.7233518]

>>7233513
How is "for those interested in the philosophical dimensions of Freudian thought" supposed to make him a philosopher proper, let alone a "GOD" of the philosophical cannon.

[Anonymous No.7233521]

>Lacan
>no Frege
Fucking hell you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.7233528]

>>7233518
Well, I'm not sure what you define as a "philosopher" but someone, to me, who provides "ideas have become central to the various receptions of things psychoanalytic in Continental philosophical circles especially" would be a philosopher to me.
For instance: Camus: really more of a novelist and essayist, but due to his contribution to philosophy and preservation and discussion, mainly by philosophers, I would suggest he's a philosopher.
Again with Lacan: quoted mostly by philosophers, discussed mostly in terms of philosopher, rarely touched on by psychology: it would seem he's a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.7233535]

>>7233513
What are you going for? Which institution we should comply with? Or which name to give him? Call him a philosopher if you want, then read on him and be dissapointed he doesn't do the same as the others.

And what are we talking about here? If things have a philosophical dimension to them does not concern us in this moment, but to reply to OP's fantasy of an answer, to which I'm saying Lacan won't have any and really stands out from his list of answering entities.

[Anonymous No.7233537]

>>7233528
It's because psychoanalysis is literally over. psychoanalysis methods are still used by some philosophers, i will give you that, and most people interested in Lacan are either doing some sort of culture critique or using his ideas to talk about ideology.

He was still never a philosopher, in the same way Freud was never a literary critic, or a film critic.
I honestly don't understand why this is hard to understand.

And even if i give you that Lacan is a philosopher for sake of argument. He would still be literally insignificant in terms of the history of philosophy in terms of impact or lasting effect or lasting influence or body of ideas by any metric.

Ayn Rand is more a "god" of philosophy than Lacan is TBH.

[Anonymous No.7233634]

>>7233424

incomplete list.

[Anonymous No.7233734]

>>7233424
>Lacan

[Anonymous No.7233750]

the big boys in western philosophy are:
plato
aristotle
descartes
spinoza
hume
kant

pretty much pointless to pick out any philosophers beyond that point as monumentally important.

[Anonymous No.7233755]

>>7233750
NEE CHU

[Anonymous No.7233762]

>None of the Greeks
>Lacan
>Implying the philosophical God isn't the Unmoved Mover, the Abrahamic God

[Anonymous No.7233772]

>>7233750
>no Hegel after Kant

[Anonymous No.7233886]

hegel more like kegel

[Anonymous No.7233978]

>>7233424
>Lacan
>Hegel
>Spinoza
yeah you presumed right, these people shouldn't be on the list.

[Anonymous No.7234006]

>God Tier
Sam Harris
Karl Marx
Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Ayn Rand

>Medium Tier
Neeche
Locke
Camus

>Shit Tier
Plato
Rene Guenon
Heidegger

[Anonymous No.7234093]

Lacan and not plato lol kill yourself op

[Rosalind Hursthouse !!IJ+t51r+x08 No.7234103]

>>7233424
>Lacan
>no Plato and Aristotle
>no Descartes
>no Hume
>no Nietzsche
>etc

[Anonymous No.7234140]

>>7234006
>post Pepe Stirner
>Stirner is not even on the list

[Anonymous No.7234171]

>>7233424
Lacan is a shit. Don't get me wrong, Hegel is 100% bullshit, but at least he has a specific method he is implementing that is just retarded. Lacan is just a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.7234177]

>>7233437
That list has very few 'important' people on them, all of them are wrong, all of them are especially wrong in the parts of their theory derived from Lacan. (probably the only actually influential one in that bunch is Althusser)

[Anonymous No.7234184]

>>7233513
To claim that Lacan deals with the philosophical areas of Freudian thought is frivolous, though. That's like saying Chicago style pizza is an exploration of traditional Italian cuisine.

[Anonymous No.7234317]

>>7234006
>God Tier - Marx, De Grasse Tyson
Go back to Reddit.

[Anonymous No.7234329]

>>7233424
Lacan isn't a philosopher

Titans of philosophy:
Plato
Aristotle
Kant
Hegel
Nietzsche
Heidegger

Wittgenstein really isn't that important

[Anonymous No.7234417]

Where do i start with Wittgenstein? I'm from Austria so i feel i should read at least some of his stuff...

[Anonymous No.7234423]

>>7234417
You start by reading philosophy that matters

[Anonymous No.7234436]

There are no philosopher gods. You're barking up the wrong tree dawg.

[Anonymous No.7234440]

>>7234184
No, those things are not analogous. Particularly because 'pizza' in the American sense is an american invention. Also because it's just a shitty analogy anyway

[Anonymous No.7234445]

>>7234329
>no descartes
>no spinoza
>no hume
How new?

[Anonymous No.7234451]

>>7234440
people who sperg about analogies should get fucking shot

[Anonymous No.7234460]

>>7234451
People that use analogies in an attempt to disprove a position should be fucking shot. The 'sperging' would never happen if people could construct coherent arguments in the first place

[Anonymous No.7234470]

>>7234460
you're defending lacan you stupid faggot

[Anonymous No.7234476]

>>7233424
>philosopher Gods
There's no such thing and if you think there is you missed the point of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7234477]

>>7234470
Haha fuck you got me alright, shit.

This is me logging off!

[Anonymous No.7234629]

>>7234445
Descartes, Spinoza and Hume are sublated by Hegel and Kant.

But if you want redundancies those are fine.

[Anonymous No.7234644]

>>7234440
>Particularly because 'pizza' in the American sense is an american invention.
Yeah, just like 'Freud' in the Lacanian sense is a Lacanian invention, yfr.

[Anonymous No.7234654]

>>7234460
>The 'sperging' would never happen if people could construct coherent arguments in the first place
I'd never attempt to direct a coherent argument at someone who takes Lacan seriously. What good could that possibly do?

[Anonymous No.7234667]

>>7233424
>no Kierks

smh tbh

[Anonymous No.7234711]

>>7233424
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Hegel, Freud, Nietzsche, Heidegger. Spinoza views can be derived by engaging with Descartes, whose principles can be found in an engagement with Plato and Aristotle. Lacan depends on Freud and Hegel. Heidegger depends on all of the above mentioned figures, maybe excepting Bacon (no explicit positive influence, but he contrast his views with those of modern technology focused science, which has its ground in Bacon). Wittgentein's work can be discerned in the work of both Plato and Aristotle.

All of this is totally debatable and depends on how well you understand each thinker.

[Anonymous No.7234730]

>>7233424
>Socrates, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzche, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard

FTFY

[Anonymous No.7234745]

>>7233424

>All white guys, no Marx, no postmodernists

>>>/out/

[Anonymous No.7234751]

[Anonymous No.7234754]

>>7234745
>people's skin color matter

>>>/pol/