905769 No.545
Your favorite 3 philosophers in order
1. Socrates
2. Nietzsche
3. Plato
pic related, that's Friedrich himself.
da96a1 No.546
yea? what you like about them
905769 No.547
>>546Socrates because of how he questioned everything
Nietzsche to just how precise he is on contemporary ideas and thinking in general
Plato for his moral wisdom.
da96a1 No.548
>>547what about your philosophy, is it a mixture of them or do you just have admiration
bbabff No.549
No real order:
1.Marx - process relationism and its implications for science
2.Alan Watts - dialectical monism, eastern theories of self
3. R.G. Collingwood - Absolute presuppositions and its implications for human understanding
All three combine into a system that would only make sense to someone who is willing to bend a few precious rules of classical and modern logic and sidestep epistemology as derivative of ontology, which is up for grabs to our deepest subjective intuitions.
Realistically though, I'm influenced by a lot of others. Wittgenstein is a different aspect for me of what Collingwood got at. Kant's noumenal/phenomenal distinction is very important to me, particularly through Hegel's critique and reconceptualization of noumena. Aristotle's potential/actual distinctions are very important in connection to the noumena/phenomena concept, and virtue ethics is my preferred ethical stance.
Going to read Spinoza soon, kind of curious what I might get out of him.
905769 No.550
>>548It is indeed a mixture, but I have admiration for them as well.
48f801 No.562
Alan Watts is my favorite, though I've only begun studying philosophy. Do modern day philosophers count?
9fa1f1 No.572
←1. Plotinus
for his thoughts on good/evil mainly.
2.Diogenes of Sinope
Because of his integrity first and foremost but also because of his ideas in general (with a few exceptions)
3.Arthur Schopenhauer
Because of it's main work; The World as Will and Representation. I don't completely agree with everything but at least it's not bullshit like Kant.
47b62c No.579
In order of magnitude of influence:
1) Martin Heidegger
2) Friedrich Nietzsche
3) Albert Camus
Pretty much a straight existentialist
a29ffe No.583
File: 1420281446061.jpg (30.67 KB, 400x486, 200:243, Charles_Sanders_Peirce - C….jpg)
1. Charles Sanders Peirce
+ Abductive reasoning.
+ Founder of Pragmatism.
- Reaaaly hard to get into…
Recommended: The Fixation of Belief, Secondary literature
2. Nelson Goodman
+ The New Riddle of Induction
+ Tried to found a nominalist alternative to set theory with Quine.
+ Some interesting ideas on considering aesthetics to be properly located within epistemology (with Truth being a special case of general right-ness/correct-ness.)
Recommended: The Partially Examined Life Episode on his aesthetics
3. Heideggar
140af2 No.627
1. Xenophanes
2. Ferdinand Schiller
3. Giovanni Vailati
b6da81 No.646
File: 1422057735255.jpg (151.41 KB, 817x1000, 817:1000, Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_R….jpg)
>>545 >NietzscheMuh nigga
1. Nietzsche
2. Descartes
3. Marx
f0f100 No.661
1. Wittgenstein
2. GEM Anscombe
3. Bertrand Russell
>>583Heideggar is good.
Have you read Heideggar?
47b62c No.665
This is the anon from
>>579>>661A guy who considers Russell one of his three favorites and likes Heidegger. Man, never met one of those before.
4d9114 No.671
Well. besides the old cliche "Aristotle, Socrates, Plato) i´d prefer to make this a top 3, favorites philosophers since Bacon.
1.Kant
To me, still the last great philosopher to appear and one of the most brilliant of them all.
2.Descartes
The first 2 meditations of his Meditations are just brilliant, the first solid foundation to skepticism. Until he put God in the way and fuck it all up.
3.Locke
His Essay Concerning Human Understanding was pne of the greatest works of philosophy, he sets much of the basis for Hume and, later on, Kant.
Honorary Mentions:
Roger Bacon - AKA the first of the great rationalists.
Hume - The one who "awakened" Kant of his "dogmatic dreams" and set up the modern account on skepticism.
Feuerbach - For founding the modern atheist philosophy (not ever since revisisted since Anaxagoras)
Feyerabend - He exposed us to some of our preconceptions about knowledge.
Gödel - Technically not a philosopher, btu a logician, still, he dramatically changed the philosophy of Formal Sciences with his groundbreaking work.
Gettier - He just demolished the sacred JTB assumptions of platonic epistemology in just 4 (that´s right FOUR) pages, now, that´s a feat to put him among the great epistemologians of all times.
(I pic of Kant-Sempai just for fun)
f0f100 No.699
>>665*shrug*. All my exposure has been from listening to a bunch of Dreyfus's Heideggar lectures. Ive read a ton of Russell's writings.
Almost all of what I read is analytic. That said, I dont think its correct in any sense. No doubt Russell was mistaken about many things. I just think hes interests anyway.
f9a034 No.700
Ligotti if you can call him one, Schopenhauer, David Benatar and Emil Cioran sharing the first place
Quine for why hurr STEM master race is retarded
Popper for negative utilitarianism and his philosophy of science
93da92 No.701
How fun of you to mention Schopenhauer and Cioran, I'm reading both of them at the moment. Of Schopenhauer, I am interested in his asceticism and morality. Not surprising, considering I admire Indian philosophy (both Buddhism and Hinduism, more the former) and Stoicism.
If you haven't, maybe you should read about Lev Shestov. I do not know much of him at the moment, but he might interest you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Shestov d2fef9 No.754
>>700>>701>Cioran>Schopey>Ligotti>Benatar>QuineI like you both.
Also, Quine and Popper with Cioran and Schopey is a fucking solid and balanced set of philosophical interests. Most Analytics are pretty dismissive of Schopenhauer, and I'm sure if any of them had heard of Cioran they'd probably not care much about him either.
cc37cb No.755
Very interesting choices here, some of which I have never heard of. By comparison, I feel really unoriginal, but I have to go with the ones I'm most familiar with.
1. Immanuel Kant
Though I'm glad to see he doesn't dominate the scene as much as he perhaps used to, I still have great affinity for his genral approach and basic premisses on nearly every subject.
2. Ludwig Wittgenstein
I disagree with almost every "conclusion" he draws (both Wittgenstein I and II to an extent) and yet I adore his understanding of philosophy and his attempts at tackling it from different angles. I tend to be much more fixated on form as opposed to content, and Wittgenstein was the first to actively force me to view past that (a bit).
3. Plato
The dialogical structure and argumentative precision is what I like best, though there are quite a few cases where he has seeming non sequiturs or moves from one madium of arguments to another. If it weren't for that, I'd like him even better.
An honourable mention goes to Thomas Aquinas, who is amazing in his grip on logic, but who gets major deductions for his unsubstantiated premises.
Both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are excellent too, especially contrasting to the more traditional forms of German philosophy.
d16b54 No.768
That's a tough question. I can think of three philosophers I like quite a bit but I'm not sure which I like most. Anyhow, those are:
-Nietzsche
-Cioran
-Marx
I don't think I'm well-read enough in philosophy yet. I should go do that first and then try to think of a better list.
9e4fca No.805
File: 1423781986907.jpg (3.05 MB, 1800x1322, 900:661, Jean-Léon_Gérôme_-_Diogene….jpg)
Socrates
Diogenes
Epicurus
Seriously Diogenes was the man, homeless and wanked in public yet still revered by Alexander the Great.
06d8b6 No.825
Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Camus.
I like them because reading them gave me the feeling I read what I was feeling for the better part of my life. Finally seeing it written down is such a great feeling.
cc37cb No.840
>>700>>701>>754>>768>CioranOnly really being familiar with his aphorisms, would any of you care to elaborate on the high regard you have for him? I honestly couldn't get into his reasoning at all, and he seemed all too willing to heavily lean on intuitions and malleable constructs (though this is only my impressions from the aphorisms) to justify his assertions.
dccd0a No.844
1. St. Augustine - his Christian-centered proto-existentialism.
2. Søren Kierkegaard - His treatment of faith and his reaction to Hegel and Kant.
3. Aristotle - Ontology, virtue ethics and political philosophy.
e7a845 No.846
>>805This guy knows what's up.
Muh 3: Diogenes/Kierkegaard/Goldman
Honorable mention: Baudrillard, Vonnegut, Camus,
cc37cb No.847
>>846I died at Adam Smiths invisible hand.
c2d054 No.848
1. Popper
2. Schopenhauer
3. Kuhn
f9a034 No.862
>>840Cioran is more of an author/poet who concentrates on ideas and feelings instead of plot and characters, much like Ligotti, so I guess that makes him a philosopher in a more continental than analytic way. Just read through his Goodreads quotes if you cba to buy and/or read his works, basically he's a pessimist about existence like Schopenhauer with a witty #yolo attitude about it.
"It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late."
2bd67b No.868
>>805>>846Yeah I agree. For me it's:
Diogenes
Camus
Socrates
Honourable mentions: Sartre, Aristotle, Kierkegaard and Plato.
f9a034 No.872
>>700Forgot Zapffe, fuck.
931c3b No.908
1. Marx
2. Hegel
3. Lukács
Following them would probably be Kant and Plato.
1ce386 No.909
1. Nietzsche. Read all his books, most of them 203 times.
2. Socrates.
2. Wittgenstein.
1ce386 No.910
>>909I meant to say:
203=>2-3
1ce386 No.911
>>909Honorable mention of Schopenhauer for his work on women.
8b2b5b No.1007
1. Max Stirner
2. Nietzsche
3. Ragnard Redbeard
028d3a No.1009
>>1007edge lord detected.
stirner would kill you for shits and giggles if he felt like it.
22c759 No.1043
>>1009Actually Stirner was a pretty mild fellow, he even got some shit from people complaining he was not living up to his ideals.
8b2b5b No.1049
>>1043That picture, thank you
028d3a No.1050
>>1043I said IF he felt like it, I didn't say that he DID feel like it.
8b2b5b No.1051
c17411 No.1053
>>1050Are you implying moral folks are not whimsical?
7da076 No.1056
1.Socrates
2.Seneca
3.Epictetus
278bcb No.1086
File: 1427582549467.jpg (171.7 KB, 1024x820, 256:205, 1024px-Bastein-Lepage_Diog….jpg)
>>572>Diogenes of SinopeOh man I love that motherfucker. Shits in the theater, masturbates in public, lives in a wine jug and still makes Plato look like a retard on a regular basis.
278bcb No.1087
>>1086Forgot to give a mention to another of my favorite Greeks, Zeno of Elea. The fragments of his work that we have are so fascinating, he supposedly wrote volumes more which were lost to time.
283b18 No.1137
1. David Hume - Greatest philosopher to have ever lived bar none. Hume's ideas are just as profound today as they were in the 1700's
2. Francis Bacon - Basically the father of the scientific method. He was also extremely influential politically and could be viewed as the architect of many of our American ideals.
3. Noam Chomsky - Revolutionized the field of linguistics to make it more empirically aligned.
The four people who have most influenced my thoughts are Hume, Bentham, Marx and Chomsky.
Existentialists and their ilk are all clowns as far as I am concerned. Psychoanalysts and Existentialists are non-empirical jokers who feel content to dress up folk wisdom and pass it around as profound truth. Beyond the cafes of Europe I really see no place for this kind of wordplay philosophy.
283b18 No.1138
4632c7 No.1181
>>1137It's being shown that Chomsky lead linguistics down the wrong path.
There is no such thing as a "universal grammar" and language isn't innate to human beings so I wouldn't really call him that revolutionary. He had a big impact surely but it was a pretty bad one for the field as a whole.
cc37cb No.1183
>>1181>There is no such thing as a "universal grammar"What's the latest theory for language acquisition? I'm not up to date and most stuff I find still seems to hold generative grammar in high regard.
7da076 No.1187
>>1183There is nothing wrong with his generative grammar. Where his mistake is, is in postulating it as a result of a "universal" grammar. That has shown to be false by people studying the origin of language question.
It's important to note that for generative grammar to hold water there doesn't necessarily have to be anything universal about it.
cc37cb No.1192
>>1187No? Seems weird to assume generative grammar if it can't include any language a child is potentially exposed to. No need to go further off-topic though, I think I'll check up on some origin of language studies.
Thanks for the heads-up m8.
7da076 No.1198
>>1192No problem. Check out "Why we talk" by Jean-Louise Dessalles.
283b18 No.1209
>>1181His revolution wasn't necessarily that he was correct. He took what was once a very abstract and hazy domain that was often viewed as the domain of psychologists and firmly planted it in science. He was trying to find scientific ways to probe the human mind and the language faculties. His ideas were also very influential in the field of philosophy of mind. I don't agree with you about there not being a universal syntax but even if there wasn't that wasn't the main goal of Chomsky by suggesting that there was. Trying to understand the human mind without probing a living human is a very difficult task and one which Chomsky thought could possibly be undertaken by studying syntax which he believed to be universal.
283b18 No.1210
>>1187>>1181Also it should be noted that Chomsky doesn't believe that language is used for communication and is instead primarily used for thought, (computer coding that allows it to run) so perhaps any discrepancies in universal languages that researchers have studied could be explained away by this position. I haven't read the most recent research in linguistics and I haven't read or heard Chomksy's rebuttal to such a claim which makes me question whether or not anyone has actually shown this to be the case.
7da076 No.1216
>>1209His methods are far too inductive. While I never claimed that what he attempted to do wasn't commendable to an extent I still think setting linguists on a several decade long path of introspective "science" was the wrong thing to do.
The problem with postulating that language is innate and universal is the fact that if the grammar were then we would all be speaking the same language. I don't think it's necessary that it needs to be innate for the brain to be able to decode it. Children who grow up without a language are never able to acquire one afterward. Doesn't seem very innate.
319d35 No.1494
>>1056
Epictecus is great
1.Rousseau
2. Kierkegaard
3.Epictecus
45c019 No.1495
Bertrand Russell
David Hume
John Locke
62b1a2 No.1497
>>549
Spinoza is good stuff. Especially his psychology and dealing with the emotions. Lots of overlap between him and Freud.
62b1a2 No.1498
>>700
I haven't read Quine, but tell me more on his views of the "STEM master race"? How did he show it was retarded?
964db2 No.1500
>>1498
I assume he's reffering to Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
His critique isn't original, it's just a modern version of older arguments. Hegel's arguments against empiricism and rationalism are just as good.
f9a034 No.1504
>>1498
He sees philosophy and science as two facets of the same enterprise of truth instead of conjuring a plebbit-tier demarcation like Dawkins and his utterly retarded neo-positivist co.
>>1500
Partially this, mostly because of Duhem-Quine thesis and web of belief.
000000 No.1581
Schopenhauer
Nietzsche
Stirner
61d67a No.1635
1. Kant
2. Karl Popper
3. Hume
actually i would torn between Popper and Descartes, a few days ago, but i´ve recently read a bit of Husserly (another excelent philosopher) and he wrecks Descartes thoroughly, and Popper make his entrace with his Logic of Scientific Discovery, one of the greatest science philosophy works off all times.
also a notable mention to Porphyry the fucker who invented one of the hardest problems in philosophy, the Universals Problem.
e3e7c1 No.1660
add1c0 No.1681
169012 No.1688
>>545
Hegel
/ \
Heraclitus --------- Heidegger
He-3
169012 No.1689
>>545
Hegel
Heidegger
Heraclitus
He-3
195e71 No.1707
cb1325 No.1719
Boris Mouravieff
>for continuing the Fourth Way philosophy, expanding upon and clarifying it and making interesting parallels with it and Orthodox Christianity
Leo Tolstoy
>for his synthesis (or perhaps clarification?) on Jesus' teachings, pacifism and anarchism and living after his own teachings
The Ra Material
>For giving hope and universal understanding
1ba217 No.1721
>>545
1: Thomas Aquinas for being the first and possibly only Christian to ever make a h decent argument for the existence of God.
2: Jean Paul Sartre for being one of the few existentialist philosophers edgeballs have not tainted yet.
3: Nietzsche for being openly misogynist. Women ruin everything.
Honorable mention: Karl Marx. I would've put him at the top but I don't consider him a philosopher. He's scientist. All of his political theories came to pass as if he had precognitive powers.
ca17aa No.1741
1. Socrates
2. Descartes
3. Heidegger
c1c607 No.1742
>>1721
>for being the first and possibly only Christian to ever make a h decent argument for the existence of God.
lmao
614bb9 No.1744
no order
1. Alan watts great knowledge on the west and overall better mindset on living life
2. Plato
3. Cant really pick between Terence Mckenna and Russel Brand. Ive learned a lot from Brand hes ahead of his time imo
18ac5a No.1747
>>1744
>Russel Brand
Please, do elaborate.
d1d110 No.1749
>>545
1) Jesus Christ
2) Augustine
3) Thomas Aquinas
I ranked them in order of importance to me, not sure if that's what the metric was.
68d9f0 No.1786
>>1744
>Terrance McKenna
Don't know if I'd call him a philosopher. More of a psychonaut and psuedo-science peddler. His work is essentially a collection of ideas he had when he was high. I've had those too, but maybe I'm just a bit salty that I never got a publishing deal out of it.
000000 No.1787
>>1749
this looks like a combo I was going to post; i'd put aquinas above augustine and probably have someone other than aug
96cda6 No.1788
>>1749
Jesus wasn't a philosopher. What claims did he defend through reason? What assertions did he ever back up except with reference to scripture? He held his ideas to be truth through alleged supernatural powers and divine revelation. Nothing more.
614bb9 No.1854
>>1747
imo hes not really a philosopher but a lot of things he talks about on his youtube channel and what he speaks about publicly no one else is really talking about thats why I think hes ahead of his time. watch some of his videos, smart guy. I honestly believe that guy gives a fuck.
614bb9 No.1855
>>1786
lol I kind of agree with what you're saying but to me personally I consider him a philosopher because he helped me figure out the current political system in America is not working. Listening to some of the speeches that both him and Alan Watts gave really helped me get though my college semester.
e9a290 No.1856
>>846
>Gallileo
>Newton
>Darwin
>Freud
I thought these guys were just scientists, not philosophers too.
18ac5a No.1859
>>1854
If you could recommend a specific video I'd appreciate that, ideally one that illustrates both his depth of thought as well as his unorthodox choice of subject.
I asked unironically btw. I don't assume people give half-assed replies to this thread.
bd0a42 No.1902
I'm pretty new to philosophy, but the three I've really enjoyed so far are
1.Nietzsche
2.Marcus Aurelius
3.Descartes
If this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54 -- is anything to go off of, I think Ill fall in love with Spinoza.
It's sad to see this board so dead. I know im contributing in the most generic here, but I'm honestly a bit intimidated and overwhelmed.
4d2ead No.1904
>>1902
>I'm pretty new to philosophy
Same. Very, very new. Although I'm making an effort and checking out books from my school to read in class and at home ofc.
>Nietzsche
I'm reading The Basic Writings of Nietzsche and enjoying it.
>Ill fall in love with Spinoza.
I enjoyed the school of life videos as well, but warning, Spinoza is... a very, very difficult read. It's set up like a gigantic mathematical proof, I think.
>I know im contributing in the most generic here, but I'm honestly a bit intimidated and overwhelmed.
What do you mean? Why?
bd0a42 No.1908
>>1904
>Same. Very, very new. Although I'm making an effort and checking out books from my school to read in class and at home ofc.
I've been buying mine used. having a book I can always come back to refer to is worth the money.
>I enjoyed the school of life videos as well, but warning, Spinoza is... a very, very difficult read. It's set up like a gigantic mathematical proof, I think.
I'm sure it wont be an easy read and ill stumble alot, but its more than worth it. I can already tell my reading skills are and comprehension have improved greatly since I first started.
>What do you mean? Why?
Much of the talk here seems to go over my head. People here seem really well read, I feel like I can participate in the conversation as much as I would like to.
4d2ead No.1911
>>1908
>I've been buying mine used. having a book I can always come back to refer to is worth the money.
>tfw no monies
>Much of the talk here seems to go over my head. People here seem really well read, I feel like I can participate in the conversation as much as I would like to.
Same. For the most part anyway. Kant, Hegel and the like are the main people that confuse the shite out of me.
>>545
I never gave a list of top three, all I can give is a very very vague list of people that have interested me at a surface level, what with my little reading.
Nietzsche
Spinoza
Stoics
Aristotle
Epicureans
Camus
Baudrillard
Thoreau
This will surely change with time and study.
4d2ead No.1912
9e6f70 No.1927
>Marx
>Bertrand Russell
This place has a lot of redditors.
4d2ead No.1943
>>1927
Probably /leftypol/.
4d2ead No.2078
1. Francis E. Dec
2. Gene Ray
3. Wiley Brooks
2cc205 No.2079
1. Christian Weston Chandler
2. Jace "Parkourdude91" Connors
3. Tyrell Wellick
5a1504 No.2115
1. Camus - looked cool and fucked bitches
2. Diogenes of Sinope - absoute MADMAN
3. Stirner - !SP00KS!
dc9c0f No.2120
1. Nietzsche
2. Marx
3. Sartre