[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / twitter / tiktok ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)


File: 1730385484355.jpeg (55.91 KB, 416x599, IMG_6640.jpeg)

 

Which philosophers in your opinion are either charlatans or overrated?

Reminder that Kant was 5'0

>>2006187
All of them.

File: 1730387120515.jpeg (3.71 KB, 194x111, image.jpeg)


>>2006196
He could have been a good twink or trans woman if someone in the past had been a good influence on him.

>>2006187
Heidegger, 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).

>>2006187
I have a PhD in philosophy and literally just spend my entire life reading books all day. I would seriously question the knowledge of anyone that strays too far from this specific list

File: 1730387453189.jpeg (5.79 KB, 224x224, image.jpeg)


>>2006213
He wouldnt. Look at how norwooded he is.

>>2006218
Did you just put heidegger in "A" tier?

>>2006228
Heidegger 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.

>>2006224
Why is Kant S tier?

>>2006238
Kant was a massive turn in studying the self rather than being obsessed with external objects. He frankly just has many good theories that really set him apart from other philosophers. And his antinomy theory was critical in Hegel discovering dialectics.

>>2006240
>He frankly just has many good theories that really set him apart from other philosophers.
Which ones?

>>2006234
I 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?

File: 1730391542765.png (409.31 KB, 680x967, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2006196
what was the average in his time and place?

File: 1730391827330.png (561.08 KB, 800x440, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2006218
well i don't have a pretty huge dick in falafel-see, so how about you shut the fuck up and tell me who the fourth nerd on the second row is?

>>2006218
>2/3 S tier are idealists
Common leftcom L.

all of them

>>2006311
>It's still not as amazing as when Kant gets a boner
>He would say "the circus is in town" when he got morning wood

>>2006395
What a retard

Nietzsche
Kant
Schopenhauer
Lacan
Deleuze

>>2006218
terrible list if only for >>2006228

>>2006218
Why Fichte D tier?

>>2006491
>Nietzsche
he is okay, died like a retard though
>>2006491
>Schopenhauer
decent
>>2006214
>Zizek
funny fat fuck, not worth taking serious

>>2006538
Nietzsche was the progenitor of fascism

>>2006545
This meme needs to die

>>2006545
his 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.
>>2006561
sorry i took the bait

>>2006545
>>2006561
Nietzsche 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

>>2006545
Truth nuke

>>2006218
I'm a little surprised at how many idealists you rank above materialists. Is there a reason for that? You are a communist right? The more I learn about philosophy the more I'm convinced idealism is true; I'm still working out if I agree with an epistemological or metaphysical idealism more, but generally speaking, idealism seems more correct that substance dualism and definitely more correct than materialism. What's your stance on the whole idealism vs materialism debate? And with the traditional philosophical meaning of those terms of course. Also if you don't mind me asking, what was your doctoral thesis on?

File: 1730403659842.png (691.77 KB, 1000x1500, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2006328
3/3 are germans… i'm starting to think anon has a german idpol thing going on

>>2006748
Where does Hegel talk about that last panel on his corpus?

>>2006762
NTA but i wouldnt be surprised if Hegel thought that, other german philosophers (ex: Kant) were notoriously racist. Its just part of being a 18th/19th century european


>>2006601
This 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

>>2006805
Also 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.

>>2006805
The Will to Power (the book we got, not Nietzsche's ultimate plan he couldn't get to write) seems to be a lot of very experimental stuff no? Like Nietzsche just kind of playing around with notes he didn't necessarily agree with, though I guess we'll probably never know his ultimate opinion on those notes. But in that book isn't Nietzsche saying the eternal recurrence is literally real and not just a thought experiment?

>>2006561
>>2006805

its true tho, and hes not fash because of antisemitism or nationalism, its inthe structure of his theory. eternal return denies the possibility of change and is in opposition to dialectics. nietzche is a closed circle that always returns to the start, like the hard times weak men meme, where hegel is like a spiral that repeats the lower level on a higher level after a qualitative transformation that allows for progression

>>2006638
Spoiler alert: People did not notice it for a very long time but material monism itself is deceptively idealist. Idealism solves 90% of the philosophical problems in the world. Including in as much as why we have access to external truth through mathematics etc.

>>2006805
>Anti socialism

Then why the hell Cuck Philosophy ( Jonas Ceika) wrote a entire book trying to mix Nietzsche and Marx philosophy?

>>2006511
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis being attached to Hegel has ruined the world

all of them?

>>2007200
because hes a fucking philosophy major trying to get you to buy their book by making something le quirky?

>>2007210
So you basically saying he's a grifter

>>2007189
>material monism itself is deceptively idealist
This is what Bataille says right? That's why he came up with his base materialism no? What was his take on mainstream materialism being actually idealism?

>>2007215
like anyone trying to build a social media brand really

>>2007189
Elaborate

>>2006218
lmao why guattari is d but deleuze is b, also lacan is a huge waste of time

>>2007189

>Including in as much as why we have access to external truth through mathematics etc.


Ahahahahahahaha!

>>2007202
NTA 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.

>>2007221
there's already a bataille thread.

here's a copypasta explaining that:

Bataille and Base Materialism

Bataille 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.

>>2007430
>, so you needed an even MORE materialist form of materialism, the 'materialism of the base'.
>It's sort of the ultimate form of problematizing abstraction itself.

ok, but why can't we do a BASE OF MATERIALISM OF THE BASE? Can we go EVEN FURTHER BEYOND?

>>2007432
no, 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.

>>2007432
You can experience it but not think it.

>>2007215
i wouldn't go that far unless you want to call all acedemics grifters, because all they do is mix old philosophers in new ways to come up with new ideas. which is fine, but its not communist or revolutionary. they are never mixing so-and-so with stalin to create a new perspective on revolution its always some kind of way to analyze media or their feelings otherwise they wont get published. the summary for his book "Leaving behind its past associations with bureaucracy and state tyranny" is anti-communist. the theory that works has already been made and hes rejecting it outright by embracing false propaganda

>>2007470
Being against the State isn't anti-communist, you stupid stalinoid.
>the theory that works
lol, lmao even.

>>2007475
its is thats the point of the distinction communist instead of socialist or anarchist

>>2006218
What's your beef with Kuhn and Weber

>>2006218
What are some quick philosophy facts I can use to impress women

>>2007152
Yes Nietzsche, like Schopenhauer, believed that struggle is inevitable, since we are finite beings with self consciousness. Anguish is, according to them, a fundamental aspect of life.

>>2007429
>This is of course derived from Spinoza’s famous thesis, “omnis determinatio est negatio”, or “all determination is negation”.

"Everything I'm not made me everything I am"

All of them.

>>2007612
invectives against philosophy is in and of itself one of the most common forms of philosophy

>>2006218
Where 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

>>2007922
>implying anyone here has actually read all those people

>>2006218
>Gramsci with Peterson
This ends, now

>>2007936
yeah its a dogshit tier list

- Nietzsche, there's a reason why morons such as Jordan Peterson have a high opinion of him
- anything post-
- fucking Heidegger
- the worst of all: fucking Sloterdijk

Kant is not overrated, he's a bit underrated by socialists and communists. I'd put him on par with Rousseau.

>>2007959
Peterson doesn't understand Nietzsche.

>>2007959
qrd on Sloterdijk and how he's "the worst of all"?

>>2008032
>Slaughterdick
Hahahah, gotta be a transhumanist

File: 1730487815342.png (275.78 KB, 800x1147, ClipboardImage.png)


Leftypol doesn't read specially not philosophy

>>2008090
>philosopher

>>2008109
if only, maybe then the threads wouldnt be filled with useless philosophizing irrelevant to communism

>>2008119
Marx is both a philosopher and economist. Better of the latter than the former.

>>2008159
wasnt marx more like an anti philosopher? hence his quote about changing the world not describing it?

>>2007936
Cultural hegemony and all the "unique" insights Gramsci came up with were not remotely insightful for the time period he lived in just like Jordan Peterson so its a good position for him

>>2008196
That's one way of looking at it but imo ultimately that still falls within the bounds of philosophy. Wanting to change the world is still philosophical, just as wanting to understand it is as well. With Marx it's pretty clear because you can tell clearly the separation between the positive and the normative in his thought. The positive is for example when he simply examines and describes capitalism; this is a lot of the Capital is, just a description and analysis of what capitalism is. The normative is when he gives his take on what should be done.

>>2007922

Clement: 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

File: 1730498341447.jpg (181.24 KB, 720x970, 1.jpg)

if marxism was a philosophy then it wouldnt be able to explain reality, simple as

>>2008238
>that still falls within the bounds of philosophy
man 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

>>2008238
marx was only normative on personal letters for obvious reasons

>just a description and analysis of what capitalism is

by your logic even every natural science is philosophy too

>>2008159
marx 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

>>2008292
>hegel was notoriously antideutsche
Can you explain what you mean by this?

>>2008312
>by your logic even every natural science is philosophy too
That's not what I meant, obviously Marx's analysis of capitalism is not philosophy, it's just a description of what capitalism is. That's the positive aspect of his corpus. I'm saying this to show that with Marx, unlike other philosophers, where the positive and the normative begins and ends is much clearer than with other people.

File: 1730502335662.png (431.7 KB, 720x720, GWp9_tzWoAAdE6Y.png)

>>2008381
antideutsche 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.

>>2008386
Ok, I see what you mean. I had some sort of idea about this, particularly with the Hegel-Napoleon relationship. Fichte is like the opposite of Hegel in that case.

File: 1730503715024.jpg (39.59 KB, 400x492, 2540905572_e491feaff7.jpg)

>>2008381
>>2008386
nietzsche 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.
>>2008401
yes, and hegel must be spinning in his grave that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic has become his attributed legacy lol


I don't know if it counts but Marcus Aurelius and Miyamoto Musashi are just macho larp journals that ultimately teach you to be a slave accompanied by a made-up story that is supposed to teach you that being a piece of cattle is "based." It's the manosphere, PUA grift of their times but it has left a profound effect on the psyche of modern civilization. Go to any American, chain bookstore's philosophy section and you'll see these guys front-and-center. It belongs in the trash with the likes of Ayn Rand's romance novels.

>>2008415
Ironically, Hitler looks good like this.
He probably wouldbe made a good symphonic metal album

>>2006203
>>2007612
>>2008793
Philosophy 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
>>2008825
True 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.

>>2008832
>all he is saying over and over is that there is no reason to be upset.
Sounds like a Roman version of Cucktin

>>2008386
National identity is a meaningless bourgeois construct and that you feel in any way offended that people would criticize or even denigrate a national identity, including your own, shows how dumb you are. You also don‘t need to love to have legitimate criticism either, you are just looking to get mollycoddled and therefore try to preemptively delegitimize criticism you don‘t like with that criteria.

>>2008871
national identity is meaningless
false
>you dont need love to hate
hate 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 criticism
my 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.

>>2006601
>Nietzsche wouldn't have been a fascist

>>2008898
>false
The 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 hate

Never 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.

>>2008946
nations 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 dialectics
Eternal 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
>>2006809
I 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.

>>2007200
Some 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.

>>2006218
I wish I was you
>t. Coward who didn't sign up for a philosophy career

>No one mentioned Ayn Rand as overrated
I read all of Atlas Shrugged in 1 sitting and I will never get back that wasted time.

>>2006187
all of them. all philosophers are in hell

>>2009136
>when you are so trash you are by default in the trash bin.
I would put also Mises, Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, Menger, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, Hoppe and everyone else from the ancap fanclub.

File: 1730562259755.jpg (94.15 KB, 800x581, philosophical_beliefs.jpg)

Philosophers can also be divided according to where their strongest interest lies. Within the field of metaphysics, materialists believe that matter is the only kind of entity that exists in contrast to idealists who hold that matter is an illusion. Monists believe that only one kind of ultimate stuff exists, while dualists maintain there are two kinds – mind and matter. Determinists hold that events are caused by other events and are predictable according to laws; libertarians that there are uncaused events – human free will. In epistemology, the study of knowledge, the empiricists trace the truth of propositions to observations and experience; positivists are extreme empiricists claiming that anything that is neither a part of logic and mathematics nor of empirical science is meaningless. Rationalists claim humans have innate ideas that are prior to experience and necessarily true. Pragmatists claim that knowledge comes from practical action. Skeptics deny that any knowledge is possible because our senses and reason are so misleading. In ethics a teleologist maintains that the concept of good is more basic than right (right action is determined by its consequences). The deontologist holds the opposite – an action is right or wring regardless of the value of the consequences. Utilitarians measure the goodness of an act by its utility. Hedonists maintain the only thing good in its own right is the experience of pleasure or the absence of pain. Stoics emphasize the practical aspect of philosophy as a guide to living. Reason, not our desires, should be our guide to action. Existentialists maintain that man's existence precedes his essential nature which is not given to him but is made by him in the choices he makes.
https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/philosophy_fields.html

File: 1730562389469.jpg (112.1 KB, 800x566, major_philosophers.jpg)


>>2009287
doesn't a dualist have to be a materialist and an idealist at the same time? otherwise they're just a monist?

>>2008252
Anon I don't care if you have a phd in philosophy, your tier list is pretty dogshit, you seem to have a heavy bias towards continental philosophy and german idealism (not exactly uncommon on this site), also even if you loathe him, to put althusser in the same fucking category as ayn rand or meme shit like alan watts is a mortal sin. And Chomksy isn't even a fucking philosopher hes a linguist.

>>2009312
You'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

> I have a hate bias towards all french people
ELABORATE YOU XENOPHOBE

File: 1730567294484.png (613.33 KB, 1140x651, tierlist.png)

Here's a way better tier list.

The only reason Kant doesn't go totally into garbage tier is because I believe its critical to read Kant even if you are an anti-Kantian like me.

>>2009309
The dualist somehow does believe in a material world but they think incorporeal entities like souls and God interact with it. They aren‘t materialists because they include incorporeal entities that can not be scientifically investigated, as they are supernatural, but they don‘t think this material world is merely imagined by consciousness either.

>>2009422
Based Materialist Idealists

>>2009342
Your list is dogshit and I‘m happy at least one person pointed it out. If idealism was correct then Kant could have just imagined being a Gigachad with a BBC instead of a midget with male pattern baldness.

>>2006214
I'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

>>2006218
no laozi no Zhuangzi Heidegger in A tier and Camus/Gramsci at the bottom is crazy work Mao was right about too many books lol

>>2009422
Personally I believe everyone who says there no such thing as the soul is a philosophical zombie (A walking, talking,, material,object, with no deeper meaning behind its existence.). Materialists are living in the purely material world while I'm living in the dualistic world which is higher. Anywhere, are there any little communist twinks here that want to get fucked by a god?

>>2010399
anon you're probably just mentally ill

>>2010401
From your perspective, correct. From my perspective, you are mentally ill.

Kant, ı fucking hate him

>>2006187
All of them, Ancient Greeks did nothing wrong in killing Socrates, just wished they'd have finished the job.

>>2009395
>Freud
>Garbage
You take that back. I know you secretly want to fuck your mother that's why you ranked him so low because you felt called out.

File: 1730637364966.jpg (149.07 KB, 919x989, Masonic chad.jpg)

>All of them, Ancient Greeks did nothing wrong in killing Socrates, just wished they'd have finished the job.

>>2010510
Mithra's Cult, Freemasons, Sufis…why the petite bourgeoisie and aristocracy prefer to do philosophy underground, hiding their liberal thoughts from the proletariat? It made sense before the French Revolution, but even today most of the western population thinks Freemasons are a conspiracy theory

>>2010519
>It made sense before the French Revolution
Liberal were prosecuted well into the 19th cenury
>even today most of the western population thinks Freemasons are a conspiracy theory
It'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.

>>2010519
There were freemason lodges in Liberia lol. Yeah the freemasons started off as a petit bourgeois secret society promoting republicanism but it eventually just ended up being urban social club for everyone

>>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.

>>2010432
Freud is considered a pseud even by modern psychology so not sure what you're talking about. Actually its arguable Freuds early theories contributed to the satanic panic child abuse conspiracies and therefore Qanon indirectly

>>2010611
that was in a period where there were few enough printed books that a single person could still read them all.

>>2009287
>>2009290
NEW POLITICAL COMPASS HAS OFFICIALLY DROPPED

>>2006218
can we take a moment to appricate that almost everybody on that list is from Europe or the west in general?

>>2010936
>to appreciate
Why, are you a nazi or sum?

>>2011158
no… just a little proud


Unique IPs: 72

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / twitter / tiktok ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]