[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks
Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
Flag*
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


[ Literature ] [ E-books ] [ Politics ] [ Science ] [ Religion ]

File: f6a8fa16b9cf364⋯.jpg (45.08 KB,1020x518,510:259,60088067_355230208462492_7….jpg)

170f23 No.7286 [View All]

Lemme know what you think (Machiavelli was missing and would be God tier)

29 postsand1 image replyomitted. Click reply to view. ____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8108fa No.7369

I like where Foucault is, but how is Hume that low? Pretty much all philosophy after Hume is a response to Hume.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6a3876 No.7370

>>7289

where is jordan peterson?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a9841 No.7371

>>7369

the guy mentions rosa luxemburg and karl marx as meh and good respectively lol

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3d49a4 No.7372

>>7289

>Turing

>philosopher

You're a retard.

>Marx

>a philospher

An economic propagandist is not a philosopher.

Is that Rand? That cunt did shit all philosophizing.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e6813 No.7373

>>7367

Yeah, I agree that Truth proceeds Knowledge. But in this statement.

>"Then if it is knowledge it must certainly be true"

Doesn't the "certainly" evoke the conflation of knowledge with truth in this context. If not, then the person's whole response would be completely pointless. For simply having knowledge on something doesn't guarantee it's truth. Which is applicable to their own knowledge.

Earlier they stated

>You may be calling it wrong without knowing the specific argument put forward, but that can be easily accomplished because if you know what is right, and what is right is opposed in any way to what is concluded, then whatever argument they used to conclude it is wrong, somewhere someway somehow.

The "if you know what is right" doesn't work here since misinformation (wrong) can be know as well. Of course this isn't to say that what is right can't be known, but simply knowing what is right isn't what makes it "right". Knowing the truth isn't what makes the truth "truthful". So dismissing something because you claim know the truth, doesn't make such dismissed information wrong. For it is not knowledge that ascribes truthhood. Especially in cases where you have no knowledge of counter-information. A dismissal in that context is baseless due to the lack of comparability between information. Being purely one-sided.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a57ca7 No.7374

File: 6bde3e03a5e2270⋯.jpg (88.15 KB,622x562,311:281,1ae51db6e766ded5d6a18289dc….jpg)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

74b6cc No.7375

>karl marx

>good

>implying

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

74b6cc No.7376

>>7370

washing his penis in the toilet at the UN

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c623c0 No.7377

>>7286

>thinking Nick Land's pretentious, nonsensical word salad makes him a god-tier philosopher

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

681c9d No.7378

>Nietzsche

>high

>Marx

>good

>not both in garbage

>Spinoza not in at least good

>Heidegger not in godly

lmao shit list

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

681c9d No.7379

>>7375

It's like OP came straight from reddit to post this thread.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bde7be No.7380

File: aad5916bccc0da7⋯.jpg (136.47 KB,754x649,754:649,1558131400272-1.jpg)

OP how could you forget Diogenes? 2nd post check'd

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b85fda No.7381

File: 714bf753123646d⋯.jpeg (24.09 KB,182x276,91:138,download.jpeg)

>>7289

lol i read the topic and op post, thought "oh my i bet this is going to be all communism and roll over and die type fag philosophy at the top" and you know what i was right, mercy me next thing you know they'll add epictetus to top tier.

remove all except your "poor" section, those are the only philosophies that secure independence of action and outcome, they focus on the individual which is real, society is a fiction and the other philosophers are based in fiction of interaction, not fact of observation and experimentation of the individual order.

>op is a faggot, he reads coffee table philosophy books from the mall and has become woke

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8c9e5 No.7382

>>7373

If A is true, I can never know not A, and if not B is true, I can never know B. I thought I made this clear. There is knowledge properly, which requires truth to be knowledge, then there is a more casual and everyday type of knowledge which is more akin to "likely" or "I think that..." or "we all agree...", and there is finally a degenerate meaning of knowledge which is not worth being called knowledge, something like the pragmatist convention. For the second and third forms, something being knowledge in those senses indeed does not require truth, but this is not what we are discussing. At least, it is clearly not what I have been putting forward. In the first and most proper sense of knowledge, that thing, A or not B or whatever, being true, is a necessity for it to be knowledge. Are there other necessities as well? I won't doubt it, but the only one relevant to us is the truth necessity. So, if A is really a piece of knowledge, it is impossible for not A to be true. It couldn't even be knowledge in the first place if not A were true.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

192238 No.7383

>no Bernard Henry Levy

fuck this thread

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7e3af2 No.7384

>>7286

This is normalfaggot trash, and why did some nigger faggot decide to pay to have this on the top page? Do you really want the scum of the website to come to the board and screw things up?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4a195 No.7385

>>7286

>marx

>stirner

>above roaring dumpster fire tier

gonna have to put this tier list in the F- row

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ff57ea No.7386

>>7289

Locke's State of Nature is the counterpoint to Kant's Categorical Imperative. Just as Plato is to Aristotle.

To put Locke in shit tier seems like you simply prefer the ideologue your cognitive bias defaults to. You did the same with Rousseau and "Voltaire."

You put that turd squeezing copy pasta retard Chomsky up there, but where is Bernays, Lippmann, and Le Bon?

No Gödel? No Boole?

So you aren't even considering the extensions of the subjective school (Plato > Machiavelli > Freud > Bernays > Goebbels > Lippmann > Alinsky et al) that dominate all media and politics today, and you're completely omitting the finest philosophers in Boole and Gödel (the man who destroyed Russell's Principia Mathematica)?

Do you even NBG set theory?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e6813 No.7387

>>7382

But the only way you can know if A is true is through knowledge.

So how do you know A is true rather than B if you don't know what B is? You couldn't say B is wrong.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bf17aa No.7388

>>7386

calm down

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8c9e5 No.7390

>>7387

My original point of "If we know A, then anything that says or relies on not A can be automatically ruled out", and this is nothing difficult, it follows directly from what it means to know A. So if B requires not A, it is clear it cannot be the case. As I suggested earlier, your issue is not with knowledge, but some weird means before ends type thing with arguments and evidence. It almost seems like you don't even believe in knowledge at all. There is just a constant mess of ideas and propositions and arguments and sometimes you believe them and sometimes you don't. But none of them ever reach knowledge for you. That is the impression I get.

>>7386

Locke was a nominalist so he's automatically trash and set theory is pretty harmful to philosophy. Just look at all the autism surrounding it. There are problems with that list, but I don't see why those are problems.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

395430 No.7391

File: 27a0b5c01f0fe8d⋯.png (68.58 KB,852x944,213:236,4854d37da95e38c7228b80024b….png)

>>7289

>Rousseau in the firsts.

>BEFORE SCHOPENHAUE

>MUH CIVILIZED SAVAGE

<Voltaire in the low.

>Marx

OP, you have shit tast and you're probably retarded with gay aids.

Do a favor and go check the afterlife for me,would'ya?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

686ce4 No.7392

stirner should have his own unranked tier for supreme shitposter

I dont even mean his philosophy I mean his letters where he calls marx a cuck

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e6813 No.7393

>>7390

How can you say B is not A if you don't know what B is? How would you know it's "B", It could be A again. To say B doesn't equal A is to state something about it, but you hardly know anything about B, so how much validity would such a claim have? Hardily any. Which makes such a rejection baseless and juvenile.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

82ee75 No.7394

>>7347

stirner was voluntarily cucked. egoism is for coping.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8c9e5 No.7395

>>7393

When have I said you don't need to know what B is? I'm positive I said

>If we know A, then anything that says or relies on not A can be automatically ruled out

How can you rule it out on this basis without knowing what it is? Maybe some examples will help, I can think of two cases

The first is

>Some premise

>Some other premise

>Some conclusion

Where the conclusion contradicts what is known. In this case, we can instantly dismiss the argument because the argument exists to demonstrate the conclusion. If the conclusion is wrong, then it doesn't matter what the premises are, the argument can only ever be invalid or valid but unsound. It doesn't need to be stated that neither of those are good for the argument.

The other kind I can think of goes

>Some premise

>Some other premise

>Some conclusion

Where one of the premises contradicts what is known. This argument can also be instantly dismissed because a untrue premise makes an unsound argument, and of course it also could be that the argument wasn't even valid. Again, neither of those is any good for the argument.

I understand I may not be the most clear anon, but I think what I'm saying isn't that hard to grasp.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

826d7e No.7396

>>7289

>diogenes

>extraordinary

>blurred by a logo you can't see unless you tilt the screen to reveal Tiermaker

Mah nigga, good choice, but watch the logo if you may

>karl marx

>good

Well you tried.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e6813 No.7397

>>7395

You can't claim B to be Non-A, since all you know is A. B could be an expansion on A. A could be a premise in B's conclusion. You don't know this.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1651d4 No.7398

>>7286

The Germans and Greeks inevitably dominate philosophy, and so they all belong in the Godly class. Everyone else is second-rate. Schopenhauer is an exception to the rule, he's garbage.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

08c2f4 No.7399

>>7398

The argument for all philosophy is the balance of the individual and the collective.

Objective proof that can be independently replicated, vs subjective opinion concerning disparate perspective, ability, self sufficiency, etc.

Philosophies strive to create "universal" rule sets. These fail to be applicable, and most depend on ideologies that fail real world application.

The worst philosophies produce false positives. The bible, for example, grants the reader the opportunity to quote whatever verse satisfies their cognitive bias at the time.

While a philosophy might satisfy an individual's system of beliefs, the risk is inherent that another individual can violate that rule set, simply by not agreeing to it.

All philosophies fail the "life boat ethics" test.

Better to sort philosophies by IQ tier.

Shit tier:

Major religions

Pleb tier:

Communism, Anarchy, Caste system, UPB, etc

Educated idiot

Burke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Aurelius, Descartes

Fucking Lawyer:

Federalist/anti federalist papers, Locke, Kant, Bernays (Edward), Hume, Artistotle, Plato, et al

Shut up Autist:

Godel, Boole, Nash

Each "tier" operates with a higher degree of sophistication, increasingly sensitive and time consuming in "defining truth."

Once you read the vast majority of them, there is little you can discover in another that isn't a fucking repeat of ten others, even the eastern books (Sun Tzu, Hagekure, Five Rings, Ho Chi Minh)

There is effectively infinite recursion in the "perfect" philosophy; what benefits the self benefits the collective benefits the self...

But it simply is the case that individuals are not equally endowed with the ability to process highly refined philosophies.

Foundational to even shit tier is "the golden rule," the beginning idea that other humans are deserving of equal treatment attributable to Maat some 15,000 BC.

That gets expanded to the basic rule set in the religions, then refined and exhaustively covered during the enlightenment as to what "equal rights for all" is... until you get all the way out to Boole.

Then you're writing discrete proofs for cost:benefit analysis, given intentionally included manipulation of cognitive biases while maintaining plausible deniability contrasted against the data scraped off Alexa, Adsense, Twitter, and Facebook then running it through game theory to compete for market share.

The issue comes into play that humans are not fucking equal either in experience or ability to process information. This inherent inequality undermines forcing people to forgo their inherent inequality to commit physical violence.

So if you're born brilliant, but frail, it's perfectly acceptable to lie, earn two billion dollars, then pay 500 million in fines while providing no quantifiable service to society...but if you're born dumb as a stump and get hurt on the hundredth house you built you'll have no legal recourse when your insurance invariably fails to cover your disability.

It's perfectly ok to con a bunch of low IQ high school dropouts with variable rate mortgages and create 21,000 suicides when those idiots can't pay 200+% written on the contract, but the hand rubbing schemers want to be protected from having their heads kicked in by some ham handed Joe the plumber.

How many mortgages would have been made if retards had to demonstrate the ability to calculate compounding interest prior to "agreeing?" Not many I'd guess.

I don't see any equality of outcome demands being made for representation of cerebral palsy in the police force, or down syndrome hiring policies at CERN.

Not to mention that Godel's proofs concisely explain that rule sets are necessarily incomplete, or inconsistent, even without flawed perspectives.

The Johari window for the average human has a very small known known pane.

So when one attempts to consider a "good" philosopher, who among them is universally observed by intelligentsia and the vast majority of the human population alike? Who effects change? Whose arguments are the classic? What is the standard?

The entirety of the population alive today that could correctly identify five people listed is likely under a million people.

Let alone correctly attribute quotes, arguments, and archetypes without google.

Those mega church scam artists seem to have a pretty successful philosophy.

Aristotle for the serfs, Plato for the elite, seems to be the function.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8c9e5 No.7400

>>7397

Again, I said

>If we know A, then anything that says or relies on not A can be automatically ruled out

and every time I've used B, I've tried to make clear it's been supposing that B is either not A or follows from not A.

Perhaps a more concrete example would help. Suppose we know "Some dogs are plants" and we are given the following argument

No animals are plants

All dogs are animals

No dogs are plants

Given what we know, we can outright reject it based on the conclusion(No dogs are plants, but we know some dogs are). We can also with a bit more work in thinking reject it because of "No animals are plants", but because we know "Some dogs are plants", it is necessary that some animals are plants(implicit is that dogs are animals, which enables this second rejection. I could state it explicitly so we know two things "Dogs are animals" and "Some dogs are plants" and it wouldn't change anything).

Are there cases where what we know is not enough to dismiss an argument? Yes. Are there confusing cases where what we know is enough to dismiss an argument but we don't realize it either because the argument is complex, or obscure or any other reason? Yes. But none of those are counterpoints to

>If we know A, then anything that says or relies on not A can be automatically ruled out

It is at best a counterpoint to the ease with which this can be accomplished.

>>7399

This was the dumbest thing I've ever read on 8ch.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e6813 No.7406

>>7400

> I've tried to make clear it's been supposing that B is either not A or follows from not A.

So such a dismissal would have to rest on an assumption? Nothing concrete.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7407

>>7399

Nice. Dint red.

>Muh fedora

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7408

>>7391

Lol u mad

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7409

>>7380

He wasn't available

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7410

>>7379

I hate reddit.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7411

>>7394

Yeah that's why ethical Solipsism is God tier

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7412

>>7384

Never saw any of this as normal. Most people like the F list ones where I live irl

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7414

I like how this thread caused a bunch of people to sperg out. Th

Also the 2nd list, as I am OP, is also mine and is more accurate

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

384086 No.7462

>>7286

>Mill is garbage

think again.

>Nietzsche above Hume

Nietzsche can be entertaining to read but come on...

but most importantly:

>Ayn Rand next to Descartes and Spinoza, above Hume and Mill

joke of the century.

furthermore:

>Spinoza in 'meh'

>Mill and Hume below 'good'

also:

>no Witttgenstein

I agree on Plato though.

Why do you think Russel is garbage?

>>7289

better. Though I don't think either Aquinas or St. Augustine deserve to be in Extraordinary, somwhere between Ok and Great maybe.

>Nietzsche and Schopenhauer above Wittgenstein

no.

I'm not much of a fan of either Spinoza or Descartes, but they belong higher than ok and certainly higher than both Freud and Jung (who I'm not sure can be called philosophers anyway).

>>7370

summerfag?

>>>reddit

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7463

>>7462

Wittgenstein wasn't available. It appears my superiority has caused some controversy

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7464

Russell was literally only good at math. His politics fucking sucked and Wittengenstein admitted it.

Analytic atheists are some of the worst people ever to exist

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7477

>>7391

also Voltaire was an enlightenment idiot who started the scientific revolution.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7478

have a bump. I have no life so I can argue this all day until I get hired (which is happening soon so have fun with this)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7479

>>7372

Retards will inherit the earth

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7480

>>7386

Some were not available

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7483

>>7399

Godel disproved Russel, so I give him credit.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

170f23 No.7486

File: 75ab438be8a3aa7⋯.png (469.07 KB,1280x800,8:5,Screenshot_20190722-195219.png)

Updated list Machiavelli missing again.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

748aaf No.7636

>>7286

Kill yourself, retard.

Your life is a hopeless case.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f043b9 No.7644

>>7286

kill yourself

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]