170f23 No.7286 [Last50 Posts]
Lemme know what you think (Machiavelli was missing and would be 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.7289
a revised edition (had to add Rousseau manually and Aristotle and Plato are up in the corner, if you can't see)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
abb778 No.7292
It's always interesting to see who people consider the most important philosophers contra least important.
Through this you can gauge what the person considers important in life whether it be furthering society, religious enlightenment, expanding the mind, finding the truth etc.
I don't think I would consider any of the philosophers mentioned garbage, though, as I think you can get at least something from them (yes including Ayn Rand).
A garbage philosopher for me would be a non-philosopher calling themselves a philosopher or self-help gurus who think they've found the fountain of truth which you can buy from them for only 29.99.
That philosopher mantle gets thrown around far too haphazardly, any idiot with an opinion can be called a philosopher these days it seem.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
05985b No.7297
>>7289
>>7286
foucalut way too high on both. I mean, Nietzsche contains all of Foucault and Baudrillard, and Baudrillard is Foucault taken to the next level.
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.7307
>>7297
I'm legit confused here.
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.7309
Why is Foucault so divisive? I mean he's essentially correct in terms of the modern educational and legal system
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6534f3 No.7320
>>7309
Well, because he's a bit of a shithead tbh.
>>7286
Ok, let's debate this; I think Marx, Descartes and Spinoza should all get a downgrade by one, for being useless pedants mainly.
Nietzsche is just edgy meme material, and so is Ayn Rand, both should fit in cozily next to Bertrand Russel along with the other emotionally unhinged sophists who added nothing of value. Speaking of adding value, Adam Smith should at least rise to Meh for knowing his shit.
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.7328
>>7320
I always thought Adam Smith was pretty unremarkable also
>edgy
Not an argument
I'm an Ethical Solipsist so things are different to me.
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.7329
>>7320
Descartes and Spinoza were somewhat stupid but not enough to downgrade. I'm a third positionist so Marx has some value, the little he has
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.7330
Ayn Rand is an idiot through and through though
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6534f3 No.7333
>>7328
>Ethical
>Solipsist
I would say pick one, but I think ethical solipsism is possible, but moral solipsism is definitely not. Rational self-interest doesn't explain the breadth of moral inclination, it is merely an economic conjecture.
As to whether "edgy" is a valid counter argument to Nietzsche, I don't deny that it would not be, but the content of his philosophy is also rather unimpressive, in addition to being morally bankrupt.
>"Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule."
>"This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce."
Sadly I don't have the source for this quote, but I think it is quite valid.
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.7334
>>7333
I always believed in a fight fire with fire mentality, or use nukes against fire mentality, so to speak. In a time of great moral bankruptcy, there is no currency left to exchange, only bullets. Though in the aftermath, a proper society can be established.
Like I said on another board:
I developed religious convictions due to a contrarian desire to despise atheists having to hang around them constantly and also used to BE One. I would know. B) because the more mental people are born, the higher the chance of criminal insurrection and radical change of the human. Also since murder, suicide, and terror incidents will increase, everything will eventually level out and the new society. As for gays, trannies, women: free meatshields. The government here is too involved foreign wars to provide services for the newborn generations (I reference the abortion bans on the south of my country) and many will fall through the cracks and become outliers, sometimes acting alone or in groups. Criminal enterprise will be big business that puts even the mafia to shame. It's not up to us to do this, we write the books/esssays, do the videos, it's up to the future generations not yet born to take up the mantle. And then in the depopulated aftermath, build a society that values actual liberty and community and God. The ends justify the means.
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.7335
>>7330
>I've never read any of her non-fiction
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.7336
>>7335
Nor would I want to. A Jewish individualist capitalist is not what I want to read unless she was doing it for the lols to troll people like that and it proves my theory women are neurotic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6534f3 No.7338
>>7334
>I developed religious convictions due to a contrarian desire to despise atheists having to hang around them constantly and also used to BE One. I would know. B) because the more mental people are born, the higher the chance of criminal insurrection and radical change of the human. Also since murder, suicide, and terror incidents will increase, everything will eventually level out and the new society. As for gays, trannies, women: free meatshields. The government here is too involved foreign wars to provide services for the newborn generations (I reference the abortion bans on the south of my country) and many will fall through the cracks and become outliers, sometimes acting alone or in groups. Criminal enterprise will be big business that puts even the mafia to shame. It's not up to us to do this, we write the books/esssays, do the videos, it's up to the future generations not yet born to take up the mantle. And then in the depopulated aftermath, build a society that values actual liberty and community and God. The ends justify the means.
I used to be that guy, and I still pray that something in our screwed up world just finally breaks and allows us to return to something like normalcy after a great amount of hardship and soul-searching. However, I try to remember that this is what is destined to happen anyway. That "every valley will be exalted, the crooked made straight and the rough places, a plain" as Isaiah said. It's a very poetical way to speak of erosion, but I think that erosion is on the side of the oppressed if that makes any sense. The axiom being that humans make bullshit, while God washes it away over time.
>There is no currency left to exchange, only bullets
I keked
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.7339
>>7338
I know I have a way with words don't i. and Yeah that makes sense.
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.7345
>>7336
So essentially you're ignorant of her justification. But some how know it isn't good?
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.7346
>>7345
Why do you think that's a problem? What's wrong is obviously wrong, it doesn't matter what argument you put up for it.
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.7347
>>7345
The best combo is Rand's anti-altruism with Stirner's anti-objectivism
Also
Rand cucked her husband. Women like that need slapped. Egoism is for MEN ONLY.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f9169b No.7349
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.7355
>>7346
Calling it "wrong" in the absence of any knowledge of it is the epitome of baseless claim.
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.7356
>>7355
You aren't calling it wrong in the absence of any knowledge though. 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.
You don't need to listen to a highly technical, hundred page thesis to know, for example, that if it concludes "Therefore the sky is green" it is wrong, even if you read nothing else in it but that conclusion.
Now, saying "I know where it is wrong" is a different issue, because if I say I know where Rand went wrong, I would have to know her argument to point it out. But again, to say her position is wrong only needs a knowledge of what is true, and what her conclusion is. There is nothing wrong with saying somebody is wrong while knowing only those two things, anything else is not necessary.
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.7357
>>7356
A conclusion that lacks premises is a meaningless conclusion, it is purely arbitrary at that point. You couldn't ascribe any truthhood or falsehood to it for it has no relation to either, it is a complete zero. Saying a conclusion is wrong because it goes against already established knowledge is fine only if such a conclusion put further is arbitrary. However, in the presence of where possible justification stands i.e. evidence. But isn't pursued and dismissed solely based on the fact it shifts one's previous conclusion is evasive, willful ignorance at it's fineness. Which amounts to nothing other than some whim. Such a behavior holds no substance for even the retarded try to acquire new knowledge. This conduct is antithetical to the very concept of learning.
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.7358
>>7357
I see your confusion. What you are calling knowledge in this case is not, strictly speaking, knowledge. Additionally, I believe you are confusing the end and the means. Firstly, if we have a piece of knowledge, let's say it is A. Then if it is knowledge it must certainly be true, since we cannot know A if not A is true. Now, since it is true, any argument that concludes not A is automatically disqualified from being true. In fact, any argument that relies on not A being true is disqualified. Again, this is because we have knowledge of A, and knowledge is of truth, and it cannot be possible for us to know A, and for it to be not A. There is something more to be said, but first quickly this. There is a sense of knowledge in which this is possible, but it is a more casual and less rigorous meaning of knowledge. Such a meaning of knowledge is more akin to "likely" or "I think so" or "could be", and if we take knowledge to mean that, we could indeed "know" A, and it could be the case that it is really not A. But this is a more a pragmatic sense of knowledge than what knowledge really is. In fact, pragmatics shouldn't even use the word. So taking knowledge to be that and only that is really just word play and sleight of hand. It's very unkind.
That detour taken, I said that you have confused the ends and the means. Your objection is likely best when you keep it at "How can I know whether A is a piece of knowledge or not?" and you suppose that it is by well done arguments that you determine it, and if that was the case then you really would have to read each and every premise and follow each argument to the conclusion. But this is not necessary, though it often is for us. It is not necessary because an argument is not a truth maker. An argument is a truth demonstrator. No one arrives at new knowledge by making new arguments, because each argument is posterior to the knowledge it is demonstrating. Even when you are forming an argument and don't know what your next premise is, you cannot write that premise before you know what to write. So however it is we come to know that A is a piece of knowledge, it is not by an argument that we know it. And, if it is not by an argument that we know whether A is or is not, then there is no necessity to reading every argument about whether A is or is not, since once we have the truth, further proofs are either showing nothing we don't already know or necessarily wrong. Not of course, that you can't learn something from someone else's argument, but it is not by the argument that you learn it. It is by the thing(s) itself that you learn it, and the argument only makes clear to you the facts of the matter. There are many people who are unconvinced by an argument for exactly this reason. They don't have inside of them the facts of the matter being demonstrated, or perhaps they are buried and hard to excavate, so the argument fails to convince. It is no deficiency of the argument, but of the person reading it.
Of course, I am not saying you cannot benefit by reading an argument on the topic, even a wrong argument on the topic. And of course, someone may prove the same thing but in a different way you did not know about. But these are not learning anything new about A itself, but about P1 or P2 and so on.
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.7359
>>7358
>Then if it is knowledge it must certainly be true
Right here is the problem.
The only thing true about knowledge is that it is knowledge (A=A). Claiming that knowledge is synonymous with truth, makes the notion of truth meaningless. The very concept of misinformation becomes nonexistent. Leading to the impossibility of identifying contradictions. In addition the idea of knowledge becomes meaningless, because there's no *true* definition of knowledge. It can't even have a "known" definition, since that would be begging the question. "Truth" here is being used as a stolen concept, since the very notion of knowledge rest on an truthful definition on what on knowledge is.
The statement "Knowledge = Truth" is tautological and lacks meanings.
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.7360
>>7359
he's not saying knowledge is semantically identical to truth, he's caching out a (supposed) entailment: "a sufficient condition for knowledge is that if x is known then it must be true, x is known, therefore is true". something to that effect. which is fine, i guess; knowledge has to be distinct from mere perceptual access or belief.
your statement "The statement "Knowledge = Truth" is tautological and lacks meanings" is incoherent. knowledge is both semantically & metaphysically distinct from truth so any identity relation is necessarily voided. tautologies are propositions (or statements) which are true by definition; they're inherently meaningful. you're conflating semantic content with un/informativeness.
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.7362
>>7360
>a sufficient condition for knowledge is that if x is known then it must be true
What else would this meaning other than conflating knowledge with truth?
Also I don't deny that there's a distinction between knowledge and truth. I wrote about there inapplicability if conflated in the previous post. Plus, what meaning does a tautological statement have that is apart from itself? Because at that point it wouldn't be tautological. To be clear I'm using tautological here to refer to redundancy.
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.7363
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.7366
>>7362
>What else would this meaning other than conflating knowledge with truth?
it means truth is co-incidental with knowledge but not identical (for any agent x if agent x has knowledge of proposition y the truth-value of proposition y always predicates 'true')
truth is a property of propositions, and in the context of our analysis of the semantics of knowledge, knowledge requires truth.
so truth is a narrowly synthetic identity of knowledge, if you like
i don't know how else to put it
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.7367
>>7366
>so truth is a narrowly synthetic identity of knowledge, if you like
scrap that. i meant given how we're defining knowledge (as a bare minimum; a true belief) then it follows trivially that knowledge is logically & metaphysically *contingent* on truth. but given their distinct, truth is not contingent on knowledge. so if you cache out the semantic relations, you get a set of asymmetric dependencies; knowledge requires belief but belief doesn't require knowledge. knowledge requires truth but truth doesn't require knowledge.
it quickly gets harry when you distinguish between perceptual access, belief & knowledge & throw in other criteria for knowledge such as justification, reliability, intesionality, predicativity, etc. but in order to have a strong epistemology you need all that shit neatly in play in decent way which voids the counter-examples (gettier problem, covariation, demarcation, extensional logic, etc).
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
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
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
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
>>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
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
>>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
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
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
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
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.