Dumb philosophers

>no one posted this retarded autiste yet

these are legit dumb philosophers
damaging but not dumb

Stirner one up'd Hegel though

Leibniz

Leibniz was smart as fuck and far from damaging to philosophy

But his ideas were hilariously fucking weird

Same with everyone else in the early modern rationalist camp

Marx

>Leibniz was smart as fuck

most retarded comment of today goes to

All philosophers r dum

*invents calculus*
*creates the basis for linear algebra*
*creates formal logic*
*formalizes equations describing energy*
*invents mechanical computers*
*analyzes the relationship between necessity and contingency*
*anticipates modal logic*
no need to thank me, kid

It's incredibly obvious how superficial your knowledge of those subjects is

...

>steals all his ideas from Newton
nothin personel kid

Aristotle was the most damaging by far.

>skims his wikipedia page

you sure showed me

no you

Plato was far worse

only because autismos took Republic at face value; Timaeus is one of the most liberating tracts ever written. Aristotle was a much bigger influence on Scholasticism than Plato and therefore on post-Roman western phil as a whole.

Nietzsche isn't as bad as his fans, though

>Dumb philosophers
All philosophers

Weren't they pretty much unknown in the west until a resurgence in popularity during the Renaissance?

No, Aristotle was very influential to medieval Christian thought, and the Renaissance could be partly attributed to previously lost Aristotle being translated into western languages from Arabic sources.

from what I gather Plato seems to have been an unimportant figure, whereas Neoplatonism was influential, although to a lesser degree than Aristotle.

Woah boy I needed this thread because of how angry these philosophers get me, I need to get this out

Marx, Heidegger (for his postmodernism influence (think Sartre, Derrida), Foucault, Zizek, Deleuze (probably the dumbest of the bunch), Plato, Aquinas (Bunch of mental gymnastics), Kant, Spinoza (yeah I went there), Jesus, Confusious and Buddha (damn life deniers), the Stoics (same reason as last two, Aristotle (kicked a beehive of cancerous though), Hegel (made process but failed to consider the individual), Stirner (too focused on the individual/not enough on the grand picture unless I am misunderstanding him), Nietzsche (too uppity), Wittgenstein (too dry, doesn't say anything profound enough to change society), Hume, Kirkegaard, Analytic philosophy, Structuralists and post-structuralists, Descartes, Marx (Diagnosing the problem is always easy, he never gave a decent alternative), Hobbes, Hume.

What a ridiculous thread.

Who is worth their salt, then, Veeky Forums?

And yeah I meant to put Marx twice, fuck him desu

I'm out of here

Why did you mention hume twice?

so basically you're a libertine and just really, really like Rousseau?

nah he read the wiki article on Nietzsche once

just to be sure I got him

No, where did you get that?

I included Nietzsche

>nothin personnel... kid....

Maybe Schopenhauer for influencing him but this guy. Schopenhauer and depression is a dangerous mix

you hate everyone else, or at least someone associated with every other major tradition as far as I can see. You bashed Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Jesus, Scholastics, Kant, Hegel, analytics, and post-modernism so there's not much leftover, especially in terms of writers who deal with "society".

unless you've exempted Locke/Bentham/Mill from the above list somehow, I'm not sure who else there really is to like. Spengler? Weber? None of those 20th C. guys are really philosophers.

Not him, but fuck Plato and fuck Aristotle.

CRAWLING IN MY SKIN

He had boobs on his head. Boobs = 100% fat tissue. Brain = behaves like muscle. Leibniz embodied is Honey Boo Boo's mom while Plato is Arnold Blacknigger.

I think for myself. I am my own favourite philosopher. I use these dweebs as stepping stones to a higher reality. No single one get things right but they all pitch ideas which can be worked upon.

No matter how many times you type Hume into your list, you could never be quite sure you had included him. Interesting

Billy Loomis?

You got it the wrong way round my man.

Anybody who thinks like me.

This is the best argument I've ever read.

Go to bed Deleuze.

There is nothing deeper than them, they're fundamental concepts

>utilitarianism has been refuted enough times
Lel, post even one comprehensive refutation

>t. Spooked idiot, probably a deontologist or something

There's no way to know how many times Hume should be included from.how many times he is included

Kant the Destroyer

>Lel, post even one comprehensive refutation

Not him, but Robert Nozick completely annihilates utilitarianism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

>it's wrong because I don't like it

You asked for a comprehensive refutation and I gave you one fagtron. There are several others too.

A refutation proves something wrong. Pointing out that something has an implication you're uncomfortable with isn't a refutation.

>dude however much utility something has to someone is however much they say it has, it's not like you can measure relative pleasure and pain with MRIs

>dude masses people being subjugated definitely wouldn't derive collective utility from modifying or destroying the utility monster that surpasses the utility the monster gains from taking resources

And there's no way of proving a connection between him including Hume on the list and Hume appearing on the list.

The implication isn't "uncomfortable" you fucking moron. The implication is that utilitarianism doesn't produce the consequences that itself claims.

Which IS a refutation. Sperg.

...

t. embryo

What the fuck are you talking about?

Learn to read fag.

Not him but, jesus fuck there are too many autodictats on lit, you're an idiot.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, philosophy should be reserved for university students that have already gotten at least an A* in Real Analysis.

What consequences are you talking about that AREN'T produced? The utility monster's whole deal is that the implication is uncomfortable.

The utilitarian maxim is LITERALLY "The greatest good for the greatest number of people".

The utility monster refutes the central maxim of utilitarianism.

Retard.

>le spooks
>t. literal autism spectrum subhuman with a malformed brain

Why does every utilitarian online seem to have a sub-80 iq

>Plato was an unimportant figure
>Neoplatonists were important figures
>Neoplatonists were inspired by Plato
>Neoplatonists were less important than Aristotle
>Plato was Aristotle's teacher
Tell me again how Plato is unimportant? Even by your logic it doesn't add up.

based

>Stoics
Retard. Straying from Stoicism is what kills every successful civilization.

Rousseau is absolutely bottom-barrel-tier, btw.

stoicism is historically a reaction to the decline of a civilization, not the cause

>stoicism is historically a reaction to the decline of a civilization
Which supports that following stoic principles by a populace will prevent said decline.

Bullshit, he was only damaging because retards went "hurr durr Aristotle examined everything, we don't ever need to check or expand upon it" for a millennia.

Can't believe no one has posted Peter Singer yet.

i meant that Plato himself wasn't studied much. Neoplatonism probably only survived because of Augustine. Aristotle might have been a student of Plato but their ideas are worlds apart. Plato was a huge influence on philosophy as a whole yeah but the West kind of took Aristotle's ideas and ran with them.

This right here

...

I'm convinced Rousseau what nothing short of a total fucking idiot.

What a fag

>>Plato was Aristotle's teacher
Well yeah, I guess that makes him important in the same sense that Aristotle's parents were important.

Speaking of him, his ideas are pretty retarded

>Which supports that following stoic principles by a populace will prevent said decline.

I like stoicism, but no it fucking doesn't. Most people's reaction to being set on fire is to flail around like idiots, doesn't mean it prevents them being burned to a crisp. Is there any evidence of a society being saved by stoicism.

>Is there any evidence of a society being saved by stoicism.
There's certainly evidence of the inverse.

>creates formal logic
what did he mean by this?

literally a sub 80 iq retard

Not him, but it obviously doesn't because were such a monster to exist and be supported by utilitarianism, it's actions would lead to the greatest good, but only for itself. But, it's a shit concept, see
>if I say le then the concept doesn't btfo my ideology

He is the greatest, or at the very least most interesting moral philosopher alive. Sorry if he hurts your feefees

>Dude don't eat animals

Not interesting in the slightest

Damn user, you really got him with that #SingerStinger

genuinely asking, where did this meme come from? as far as I know there's only (circumstantial) evidence in favor of 'L stole from N', not vice versa (although its probable they independently came up with it)

>Stoics
>life-denying

DELET THIS

Explain how they aren't

Have you read his Discourse on Metaphysics; do you understand calculus? Stop talking out your ass kid. Maybe look into why Kurt Godel, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th, respected Leibniz so much

Maths is an ultimately useless human invention

pmt

The only big thing he did was that paradox. The thing is, he thought pretty much nothing of it and it wasn't a huge problem as he formalized it. It's only when Frege himself redid the whole thing that it became such a big issue.

man you Veeky Forums contrarians come up with some good shit

Lol, that's some pungent bait

Seriously though, Socrates has managed to chap my ass on many an occasion. His work conjures feels of violence.