Which philosophers in your opinion are either charlatans or overrated?
>>2006187Heidegger, Zizek (almost all modern ones are charlatans), etc.
I don't think the Frankfurt school was a bunch of charlatans, is just that capitalist society took bits and pieces of the frankfurt critique and transformed into pure reformism and idealism. Sure, most of them were irrelevant armchair nerds that received gibbs from CIA, but they allow people to talk about marxism in school/college in a subtle way (although i was never subtle about my preferences in my presentations, not that i care about what the professors or classmates think, i study hard for myself).
>>2006228Heidegger from the phenomenal subjective frame is absolutely deserving of A. He is basically the beginning and end of subjectivity experience.
Heidegger hate is actually a great litmus test to detect people who only have a surface level understanding of philosophy.
>>2006234I am very curious about heidegger conception of mathematics and understanding of Kant, is heidegger not am empiricist?
Also, i saw in his wikipedia page that heidegger was" an obscurantist, writing, "Highly eccentric in its terminology, his philosophy is extremely obscure. One cannot help suspecting that language is here running riot. An interesting point in his speculations is the insistence that nothingness is something positive. As with much else in Existentialism, this is a psychological observation made to pass for logic." Is that true?
>>2006491>Nietzschehe is okay, died like a retard though
>>2006491>Schopenhauerdecent
>>2006214>Zizekfunny fat fuck, not worth taking serious
>>2006545his stance on the will to power is applicable and on point regardless of political leanings and his writings were actively shitting on christcucks. also some of criticisms on the leftists are still on point. the main drawback are his leanings towards a sort of aristocracy which would be inhabited by the strong, which in itself is not completely baseless historically speaking.
>>2006561sorry i took the bait
>>2006545>>2006561Nietzsche wouldn't have been a fascist but his anti semitic sister did falsify his ideas and its was interpreted by the nazis that way.
Also despite not being a fash, he was still pretty conservative nad prefered aristocracy
>>2006601This is a meme that needs to die.
His sister didn't write will to power or edit it.
Nietzsche had already written it but didn't want to publish it but it was supposed to be a summary of his philosophy. Parts of it were taken into the genealogy of morals and twilight of the idols.
His views aren't nationalistic or antisemitic but they definitely incorporate some pro aristocratic positions and anti humanist anti socialist ideals.
Nietzsche didn't care about politics and viewed it as just secularized forms of the same religious fervor
>>2006805Also there are elements of pseudo darwinism in his views.
The ubermensch is both a moral and physical ideal.
He hated the herd and viewed humanity under modernity not being put under enough evolutionary pressure to surpass itself. Man is becoming too complacent, too dependant on technology and the state to survive. This leads him to regress morally and physically. It's what he called the last man.
>>2007202NTA but Hegel's method kind of can be described using that formula. Just not with that specific terminology. Its more like abstract negation, determinate negation and absolute negation/unity. Its not necessarily wrong.
here's a copypasta on it:
>Hegel’s negation is a logical form of negation. It exists as an inversion of a philosophical opposite. First, let’s explain Hegelian negation. For the Hegelian, negation is an integral part of determination. This is of course derived from Spinoza’s famous thesis, “omnis determinatio est negatio”, or “all determination is negation”. While Spinoza’s conception of determinate negation is one-sided, Hegel’s is relational. Elements are related to each other by their mutual non-being. Negation starts as abstract negation, then determinate negation, and finally absolute negation i.e. the “unity of opposites”. I’ve also heard this described as Abstract-Negative-Concrete or, of course, the famous Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis. >>2007221there's already a bataille thread.
here's a copypasta explaining that:
Bataille and Base MaterialismBataille has been discussed here multiple times so here’s a primer on his idea of base materialism. Essentially Bataille thought scientific positivism and Marxist dialectical materialism were both not materialist enough and had subtle idealist leftovers, so you needed an even MORE materialist form of materialism, the 'materialism of the base'. Base materialism is about disrupting the ontological relation between abstractions and their specifics (actually, all philosophical oppositions, including dialectical contradictions). "Base" matter, to Bataille, is an active, unstable, and formless 'third term' which transgresses all ontological boundaries and attempts to define or contain it. It's sort of anti-platonism. To even conceptualize and define matter is to give it an ideal existence and thus in order to truly liberate matter from its idealist prison we have to think of matter as no longer being a thing-in-itself in the Kantian sense, but rather having a sort of non being, replacing ontology with a non ontology. It's sort of the ultimate form of problematizing abstraction itself. Base matter is always the basis of the ideal so abstraction is always a form of subtle idealism.
>>2007432no, it is impossible to go beyond Bataille.
You can understand Bataille but there's no such thing as a "bataillean". Students of Bataille will claim Batialle is the limit of human thought. I agree that it is ""a"" limit, just not a particularly useful on, since any attempt to walk up to that limit is really just the attempt to have an experiential encounter with the underworld, nothing more or nothing less. Perhaps some sort of occult/esotericism or western Zen. Certainly not politics or praxis, or even analysis.
>>2007470Being against the State isn't anti-communist, you stupid stalinoid.
>the theory that workslol, lmao even.
>>2006218Where would you rank Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Proclus, Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Eurigena, Anselm, Abelard, Bonaventure, Scotus, Ockham, Nicholas of Cusa, Ficino, Mirandola, Suarez, Cajetan, Bruno, Boehme, Malebranch, Reinhold, Maimon, Schlerimacher, Brentano, Marcel, Jaspers, Lukacs, Castoriadis
>>2007922Clement: Didnt
Origen: Didnt
Austine: C
Proclus: Didnt
Boethius: Unsure but he was wicked smart
Areo: Didnt
Eurigena: Didnt
Anslem: C or D
Abelard: Didnt read and extremely shamed i havent yet
Bonaventure: Also shamed havent read
Scotus: A. Honestly sometimes I want to put him in S. The depth of his thinking and how skilled of a logician he is honestly makes him ooze religious aura that effects you even if you are not religious.
Ockham: B
Cusa: Didnt
Ficino: Cant really rate him but he is a very valuable mystic and he is extremely underrated if you are religious and interested in philosophy
Mirandola: Didnt
Suarez: Didnt
Bruno: Eh better scientist than philosopher
Boehme: Didnt
MaleBranch: D
Reinhold: Didnt
Maimon: B
Schleri: Didnt
Brentano: D
Marcel: Didnt
Jaspers: Didnt
Lukacs: …… I would rate Lukacs bipolar-ly depending on how sober I am
Castoriadis: Didnt
if marxism was a philosophy then it wouldnt be able to explain reality, simple as
>>2008238>that still falls within the bounds of philosophyman phil undergrads always do this shit where they have an idiotically reductive definition of philosophy so they can call literally anything a part of it
>>2008238marx was only normative on personal letters for obvious reasons
>just a description and analysis of what capitalism isby your logic even every natural science is philosophy too
>>2008159marx wasnt a bourgeois economist nor a critic of capitalism either, you cant critique a mode of production in itself but only study it scientifically
he was a critic of bourgeois ideology, of political economy and philosophy, which aimed to mystify the workings of this mode and claim it to be eternal
>>2008381antideutsche is a strand of german who endlessly apologises for being german, like we see in the post-ww2 regime. but it was also present in the 19th century with more enlightened reactions against base german nationalism, with figures like nietzsche and hegel showing their distaste. hegel famously cheered when his village was burned down by napoleon, whenceforth he declared him "world-spirit on horseback". napoleon indeed was a unifier of europe by its subsequent conquest.
antideutsche can be compared to liberal americans who "hate america" yet their distaste is only particular of their integral american identity. im not american so i like america and americans, but can also understand why americans are self-critical. equally, one can only truly criticise from a sense of love; like how siblings "hate" each other as a form of love.
>>2008381>>2008386nietzsche fell put with wagner because wagner started becoming more influenced by german volkism rather than hellenism. in the republished "birth of tragedy" you can see nietzsche profusely apologise for any nationalistic sentiment he emplores as a consequence. his dislike for antisemitism likewise comes from a continental elitism more than particular sympathy for the jews. he considered antisemitism a peasant hysteria; and so then its no wonder that german nationalism in hitler would unleash what had been brewing all thst time (by hitler adjointly being a sort of popular peasant).
also, very interestingly, while most brought nietzsche into the trenches, hitler actually brought schopenhauer. hitler was said to be a vety pessimistic figure, like goebbels. only genuine psychopaths like goring could be said to possess the "will to power"; otherwise the whole third reich can be considered a sublime suicide, capped off by the fuhrer's own. nietzsche in the very least did not believe in martyrdom, while schopenhauer did indeed choose to act against life.
you can see the exact same pessimism in neo-nazism.
>>2008401yes, and hegel must be spinning in his grave that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic has become his attributed legacy lol
>>2008415Ironically, Hitler looks good like this.
He probably wouldbe made a good symphonic metal album
>>2006203>>2007612>>2008793Philosophy is mainly just rich dudes with too much time on their hands and not enough hobbies so they wasted their prime on idle thought experiments.
What's bad is that schools and churches tote philosophy as the highest level of maturity.
Most philosophy isn't sincere nor free from bias.
>>2008793>>2008825True for most philosophers but Aurelias spent most of his time on a war frontier as a commander.
They're just his personal notes.
You don't actually have to read it, all he is saying over and over is that there is no reason to be upset.
>>2008832 (me)
Just do your job.
It is very interesting that a Roman emperors cope notes can be read as how to be a good slave.
>>2008871national identity is meaningless
false
>you dont need love to hatehate in-itself is simply a love-to-hate so i disagree. theres a good video i saw once of a black guy hugging a neo-nazi and he asks him "why do you hate me?" and the nazi replies "i dont know". here, hate is something for-itself; not pointed at any particular object. this is also why the far-left and far-right are equally powered by the same hate; it just takes different forms. what is common is the love-to-hate.
>genuine criticismmy point is that genuine criticism can only come from within, while genuine praise can only come from without. this is the basic formula for mutual recognition. what is most authentic is self-criticism, which thus includes one's place in the critiqued.
>>2008898>falseThe concept of nationhood was imposed by the bourgeoise whereby the baseless claim was made that people of an arbitrary region had a shared historic identity and therefore should unify to a nation state, while ironically this alleged unity had to be violently enforced through cultural genocide and homogenization. Nationhood is an imposed figment of the mind and only idiots genuinely believe in it.
>>you dont need love to hateNever said that.
>hate in-itself is simply a love-to-hate so i disagree.That doesn‘t explain anything, and no, I think hatred has various concrete causes outside of itself.
>theres a good video i saw once of a black guy hugging a neo-nazi and he asks him "why do you hate me?" and the nazi replies "i dont know".First of all, you can not prove a law or generality with one example. Second, you do realize that he could have also not managed to come up with an answer on the spot to a question he didn‘t expect. Maybe he also didn‘t want to state the answer out of social embarrassment of the situation. That he says he doesn‘t know doesn‘t necessarily mean he doesn‘t know. And if he actually didn‘t know it wouldn‘t mean his hate only exists for hate itself, just like not knowing why you are depressed wouldn‘t mean that this depression exists for sake of being depressed.
>my point is that genuine criticism can only come from within, while genuine praise can only come from without.You didn’t talk about criticism from within or without but from a place of love or hate. Neither are strictly tied to any of the other pair. It‘s also just another baseless assertion. Genuine criticism can come from anywhere and from any emotional state. Someone can hate and give genuine criticism because all the flaws of the other are what made them hate them. A person who loves can give disingenuous criticism because they don‘t want to hurt the other‘s feelings.
>>2008946nations exist
>I think hatred has various concrete causes outside of itself.hate in-itself is a result of jouissance, which is recursive, not dependent on an external object. we all hate particular things, but we all still hate. thats the point.
>just like not knowing why you are depressed wouldn‘t mean that this depression exists for sake of being depressed.well you are close here. depression is actually something for-itself, which is why it still happens to people who cant find excuses for it.
>>2007152>eternal return denies the possibility of change and is in opposition to dialecticsEternal return was first introduced in The Gay Science as a thought experiment, to make you ponder over your own life and the way you have lived it so far. It is related to his other concept of
amor fati, "love of fate". I don't think it was supposed to be taken seriously as a metaphysical theory.
>>2006805>>2006809I would argue that his pro-aristocratic anti-socialist ideals, and the opposition between the ubermensch/overman and the last man, do correspond to the political component of his thought. It's not a systematic program, because Nietzsche was not a systematic thinker, but it's there and it does inform the political program of some subsequent right-wing thinkers.
>>2007200Some insights of Nietzsche are compatible with Marx. Nietzsche's philosophy is incredibly life-affirming and tells you to never stop struggling, to reject the widely held values of modern society. In a sense, he is a good self-help author (like Stirner) and I think he is worth reading.
>>2009312You're right. I have a hate bias towards all french people and althusser personally pissed me off because his personality really grates me so he got extra low. The list still is pretty accurate for the most part.
Chomsky gives his opinions on philosophy all the time so he kind of is a philosopher in some sense
>>2006214I'm the same in a lot of my papers where I won't explicitly say I'm a marxist but use the framework and all the terminology associated with it so anyone with even cursory knowledge of Marx will immediately pick up on what I'm doing. I think the funniest part is since this is burgerland the most hardcore anticommunists won't even pick up on it since they don't even know shit about what they're mad about
>>2006218no laozi no Zhuangzi Heidegger in A tier and Camus/Gramsci at the bottom is crazy work Mao was right about too many books lol
>>2010519>It made sense before the French RevolutionLiberal were prosecuted well into the 19th cenury
>even today most of the western population thinks Freemasons are a conspiracy theoryIt's just historical baggage. They are clubs. Of course important decissions get made there. A club is for people to talk to each other. It has no different substance. Obsessing, and I repeat, obsesing over them is dumb.
>>2008825>they wasted their prime on idle thought experiments.Not really. The distinction between philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, epistemology) and other fields of thought is a modern phenomenon which was only created when those fields became developed enough to be specialties in themselves. So, while some famous philosophers did spend all of their time on the above questions, most of them advanced other fields of thought through their work.
Aristotle wrote extensively on grammar, drama, medicine, and physics. Rene Descartes was a renowned mathematician who discovered coordinate geometry. Leibniz discovered calculus and some principles of physics. In fact, pretty much every field discovered during the enlightenment was principally thought of as philosophy, from Physics to Economics to Psychiatry.
Unless you believe any thinking or intellectual progress is a waste, none of them really wasted their lives. Though I'll admit this becomes less true the closer you get to modern philosophy.
Unique IPs: 72