ITT: most overrated ''philosophers''

ITT: most overrated ''philosophers''

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kC_EvSvHzgQ
youtube.com/watch?v=x2JR0Jzu8Vg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Peter Singer

Camus is pretty good actually

Hegel

Derek Parfit

As much as I love him, I'm not sure how he qualifies as a philosopher. He literally comes up with no new ideas.

>butthurt anglos are so triggered by Hegel they form a philosophical school around it
He's underrated.

Yeah, I've always thought of him as more like a poet.

He really was more of an artist. Might be an odd comparison, but he reminds me of Sun Ra ... both poets of the absurdity of life.

youtube.com/watch?v=kC_EvSvHzgQ

youtube.com/watch?v=x2JR0Jzu8Vg

All of them. Read Dawkins instead.

Dawkins is so blinded by his hatred for religion that his logos suffers for it. He comes to the same conclusion as many philosophers, but many years later ; only not reading them because they are religious.

What?? is underrated

Heidegger is overrated

Anselm. The worst hack in history.

Why? I find him one of the most interesting medieval thinkers.

This. Universities consider his work as babbling.
I add ortega y gasset

yup.

I won't argue his historical significance, but gosh is he inferior to Plato...

Derrida
Satre
Plato

Depends on where you're from.

Overrated: Hegel, Marx, Freud, Lacan in academia, Deleuze outside of academia.

Underrated: Baudrillard & Agamben. Nobody knows anything about them over here besides wikipedia-tier memes. Each have only one or two books translated yet their bibliography is full of works that are better.

Marx, lenin, engels, trotsky

>Peter Singer
>writes prose
dropped

being and time was rejected as "insufficient"
his whole project is sort of gay and retarded

>marx
>overrated
kys

Myth of sisyphus is one of the worst books I've read in my whole life. That's the only book I've read from Camus thoough.

GK Chesterton, that's assuming anyone takes him seriously in the first place.

>Underrated: Baudrillard & Agamben
lmao

The thing I like about Camus (and Sartre) is their half-baked philosophies work really well when applied to characters in fiction. Their simple yet evocative writing style with their character's psyches in books like "The Fall", "The Stranger", and "Nausea" are interesting, if only just to play with in one's head. I guess you could call it a "fictitious philosophy", one which doesn't contribute seriously to the study itself but does well to add another layer to the fiction these men wrote.

I don't know why that made me think of Woody Allen.

Every time someone says this I lose a little more faith in humanity. This guy imagined the most complete philosophical system since Aquinas and is still one of the dominant influences on thinkers today.

What are you talking about? Not sure about agamben but baudrillard has a large amount of his books translated, but I agree with you, he is super underrated. Everyone should read baudrillard

My man

Ok brainlet.

maybe all of em? :^)
I dunno philosophers does not seem legit to me.

Literally anyone besides Aristotle and Kant. Schopy is a fave tho.

You're only saying that because you couldn't make it past the first page of Categories brainlet

Most overrated philosopher I know of is Schopenhauer. I can go to the local library and pick up pieces of his work, but good luck finding The Phenomenology or The Critique.
Sartre was barely a human being.

It's hard to frame Hegel as overrated when most people -including important historians like Lorraine Daston- frame dialectics incorrectly. Lacan is another individual who is hardly overrated. So what if litnerds love that mirror stage essay? Most people know very little about how he differs from and develops Freud. (who is, along with Marx, perhaps not overrated, but certainly misapplied/misunderstood by normies and so trivialized.)
Baudrillard's 'moment' is maybe over -but it doesn't follow that he is underrated as a result. Agamban seems to be having kind of a moment.
Overrated: Laruelle, Brassier, Wark, Morton. Walter Benjamin

>Overrated: Hegel, Marx, Freud
what the fuck

nice jowls you fat kraut fuck

Marcus Aurelius

>Morton
He is not important due to any sort of originality, because he is not original, but the way he presents himself.
I frankly don't get what you mean by 'overrated'. I'm the only one who ever mentions him here. I rarely hear about him from other students, or academics.
If you mean 'overrated', as in he is presented as pop philosophy, that is both incorrect (he is pop-culture philosophy but not in the pop-culture) and irrelevant.
Unless this is a different Morton.

wrong

...

right

>It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven
ya OK good luck with that lol

JSM is hard as hell

dennet
sam harris
singer
metzinger

get a load of this dumbass

reminder this man framed most of his philosophy around justifying his lust for a married woman.

I do mean Timothy Morton. I often hear people mention him -have never seen him mentioned here- but that may be a consequence of where I've lived/the sorts of academics I interact with.

I fuckin hate capitalists man!

A mentioning is meaningless. If you mean overrated, as in made popular by people who have not read him but instead want to force meme ideas through trendy new language, then yes.
Morton is undeniably very important, even if just for helping to provide the grounds for discussions about the rebel golems that torment us so.
Again, nothing original, but is that really a criticism? Dismissing these golems only fuel their rage.

>t. angry fedora unable to refute logical suppositions

he's taken as seriously as he ought to be desu

nietzsche

Every single philosopher ever mentioned on Veeky Forums.

Owen Barfield

All pseuds that did nothing except a bit of subversion, and half-assed at that.

Sam Harris and the rest of the skeptics community

Wittggenstein

Nietzsche was a complete hack

definitely Nietzsche.

I loathe him and made fun of him several times here. I am studying ecology and otherwise self-learned in biology.
He could've been interesting and that's why I hate him - otherwise I would not give him any attention. He writes gibberish and steals ideas from biology.

(and the rest of [You])
>not posting the real mindless philosopher

This guy. Constantly pulls arguments out of his ass, and have "feels > reals" as his credo.

>Wittggenstein
>WittGGenstein
you clearly don't know shit about based Witty. Extracts from Tractatus (you probably hadn't understood by the way) and meme quotes from Investigations are not a sufficient material to dismiss one of the greatest minds in 20th century.

Sam Harris is not a skeptic.

Lot of butthurt Anglos in this thread here eh?

No but he is a faggot from the school of scientism and irrational denial of the scientific method's flaws

>Sartre was barely a human being
Kek

wHta the fuck man

all true

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.

t. Dawkins.

At least there are some good philosophers that are so underrated you're not even mad at them.

>Stirner (too focused on the individual/not enough on the grand picture unless I am misunderstanding him)

You can't understand something you've never read.

Go ahead and refute me. Saying I haven't read him isn't an argument.

>stirner8.jpg

Your dichotomy of individual/grand scheme would be meaningless to Stirner. That you would even draw such a dichotomy shows you haven't read him

user who DO you like?

>the individual is meaningless to stirner

Are you serious? The Ego was everything to him

Gramsci

>One flattered oneself that one spoke about the “actual, individual” human being when one spoke of the human being; but was this possible so long as one wanted to express this human being through something universal, through an attribute? To designate this human being, shouldn’t one, perhaps, have recourse not to an attribute, but rather to a designation, to a name to take refuge in, where the view, i.e., the unspeakable, is the main thing? Some are reassured by “real, complete individuality,” which is still not free of the relation to the species; others by the “spirit,” which is likewise a determination, not complete indeterminacy. This indeterminacy only seems to be achieved in the unique, because it is given as the specific unique being, because when it is grasped as a concept, i.e., as an expression, it appears as a completely empty and undetermined name, and thus refers to a content outside of or beyond the concept. If one fixes it as a concept — and the opponents do this — one must attempt to give it a definition and will thus inevitably come upon something different from what was meant. It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as “the sole complete individual,” so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense. But can you define yourself; are you a concept?
>It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as “the sole complete individual,” so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense

I maintain that you shouldn't criticize what you haven't read.

Baudrillard is actually really interesting, I just started getting into him.

Most over rated: Foucalt
Most under rated: probably also Foucalt.

I have read him. I didn't really understand it though. The point about him ignoring the rationality of the grand collective of society still holds.

Reason:
>Through a considerable time we are spared a fight that is so exhausting later — the fight against reason. The fairest part of childhood passes without the necessity of coming to blows with reason. We care nothing at all about it, do not meddle with it, admit no reason. We are not to be persuaded to anything by conviction, and are deaf to good arguments, principles, etc.; on the other hand, coaxing, punishment, etc. are hard for us to resist.

>Mind is the name of the first self-discovery, the first self-discovery, the first undeification of the divine; i. e., of the uncanny, the spooks, the “powers above.” Our fresh feeling of youth, this feeling of self, now defers to nothing; the world is discredited, for we are above it, we are mind.

>As I find myself back of things, and that as mind, so I must later find myself also back of thoughts — to wit, as their creator and owner. In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies — an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e.g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: “I alone am corporeal.” And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself.

Society:
>Who is this person that you call “All”? — It is “society”! — But is it corporeal, then? — We are its body! — You? Why, you are not a body yourselves — you, sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, but you all together are only bodies, not a body. Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the “nation of the politicians, it will turn out to be nothing but a “spirit,” its body only semblance.

>rationality is good
>muh society is good
Back to /pol/.

>since Aquinas
Hello pseud

LITERALLY THE WHOLE FINAL CHAPTER IS ABOUT THE WORKINGS OF HIS SOCIETY OF EGOISTS YOU FUCKING PSEUD

Yep, I was also really surprised. I associated him with a probably vulgar interpretation of Simulacra & Simulation, then became interested only because of his critique of Foucault. Now I've read a bunch of his works but I'm still avoiding S&S. I've read somewhere he disliked it himself.

Which of his books are you reading, or have read?

my nigga
I roll my eyes whenever I see some article referencing Foucault, but his lectures are GOAT and contradict his academic abusers a lot, especially burgers obviously.

>Wittgenstein (too dry, doesn't say anything profound enough to change society)
>to change society
>Analytic philosophy
>Jesus
>Kant

gave me a great laugh mate. at least you mentioned Marx twice, made

aye

DELET THIS

neckbeard autism

How come Zizek is only mentioned once? Half of Europe, including politicians, and a large part of young Americans idolize him despite his shit being purely Lacanistic/Marxist regurgitation using new-age terms.

Also, his tic & how he speaks is weird as shit.

This. His views were quite nuanced.

Sartre on the other hand.....

That's an excellent point, and I totally agree, he's merely a public intellectual.
Maybe it's because nobody here considers him an actual philosopher so nobody even thought of him. I certainly didn't.

Camus is strongest in his essays written during while he fought for the resistance (unlike most Frenchies who were LARPers after the fact)

The argument that people used his work to make a mess out of academia is sound, but the idea that this is all somehow his fault is pretty absurd.

It would be like blaming Nietchze for Hitler which I get that people totally do.