ITT: Irrefutable philosophers

He wanted to be more Lutheran than Luther and believed all of European history needed this radical Lutheranism shoved down its throat and so he published a book called Being & Time.

"I hate photography because it creates an ideal of the author and all of my work is an attempt to deconstruct that" - Jacques "Duckface" Derrida

virgin jordan peterson

Chad Rick Roderick

youtube.com/watch?v=LvAwoUvXNzU&t=22m5s

Giorgio Agamben criticizes him pretty heavily about the Of Grammatalogy claims of deconstructing, what Derrida calls, the metaphysics of presence [in a phallogocentric culture], through text.

Damn that's a cool name.

what are his arguments?

based derrida poster

You should read him if you're interested.

ahem

Ol' Jacques "Fuck you dad" Derrida.

The only reason you can't refute him is because his dead, m'lord.

cant tell if this is sarcastic

>Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.
Checkmate, non-skeptics.

...

I posit that Aristotle, John Locke, and Ayn Rand are the 3 greatest individuals to ever walk the face of the Earth. My criterion being philosophy's unique capacity to mass-influence titanic amounts of people and that it undergrids every facet of our lives. She is the formulator of what I call the first "Meta-philosophy"; Objectivism. It is a complete, integrated, closed-system.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was the strongest attack on Communism, Fascism, and Statism ever witnessed. Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole. Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism that the US founding fathers lacked. The ONLY thing (or one of the few things) they lacked. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised. And the best. And even the kindest. The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset. Historically cuckservative Republicans have tried to justify it on the basis of Altruism. To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.

should this board have a ban for all american ip's?

Ok point me to where he critiques Of Grammatology

Assert that my "bias" for Capitalism is bad all you want, but my point stands. Address it.

Sorry i am a scary cultural neo marxist (also postmodern) so im terrified since its such a threat to discuss it.
Brb gonna plan to destroy the white man and tear down the west with my jew friends

faggot frenchies

OK you mocked me. Presumably you have some fundamental premises you are opperating from and basis you had in mind when you posted that. Present them to me.

This is a good read, and mainly about rand not capitalism as a whole, guy is also a libertarian as yourself
www scribd com/document/102657523/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick

Yes

...

I've never met an intelligent person who takes Derrida seriously. Literally only pseuds who are trying to affect something

Damn, Bill looks awesome

I say yes! I hope that the dude was kidding but just being able to type that without having a break down is degenerate enough

Underrated

no arguments to be found here friend

I meant in your own words but I love reading attempted criticisms o Rand to formulate prose of my own. Will read

Completely serious.

>My criterion being philosophy's unique capacity to mass-influence titanic amounts of people and that it undergrids every facet of our lives.
So Marx would be the greatest by this criteria

>She is the formulator of what I call the first "Meta-philosophy"; Objectivism. It is a complete, integrated, closed-system.
What's "meta" about that? Plato had a closed system too.

>Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole
How?

>Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed
Define "cultural Marxist"

>Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy
Every philosopher, not just Marxists, ignore Rand.

>Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised.
1. It's an economic system, not a moral one
2. there are lots of moral systems that have been devised

>And even the kindest
But why's that good? I thought selfishness was all that mattered

>The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset
Marx's critique of capitalism is not a moral one.

>To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.
Ok, provide the arguments then. I have no reason to believe this until you do.

>Derrida was descended from a long line of rabbis. He became disenchanted with the religion claiming that "Their thinking are outdated and not radical enough. What worked against the gentiles in the post will not work in the coming 21st century. It is the cultural war, rather than the economic or religious war that will ultimately matter. I wish to lay the groundwork for a complete inversion of Western values."

>when your society is so weak a small group of French and German academics can topple it

One moment user...

the jews maN!!!!
cuLTural MARXIST ARE COMNIG THEY AV TAKEN OVER ACADEMIA !!!!!

Is this a copy-pasta?

Could you provide a source or a link? That would be great, I want to read it in context.

>attempt to criticize derrida to a derridean
>"that's not what he meant; you don't get it"

well, I guess you may call that irrefutable

I don't approve of Derrida but this is just retarded. Got a source, pal?

Dont think he actually said that

Peterson is king.

Daily reminder that Derrida defended and praised Heidegger, a white(tm) German Nazi.

is this guy honestly using over an hour to write a response defending ayn fucking rand on a imageboard

At least it's a discussion about philosophy rather than memes or meta-meme discussions

I guess your right,
seeing that he uses words like "cuckservative" and thinks ayn rand is a god says a lot about this guys meme level tho

>A mediocre sci-fi writer that no-one except a bunch of retarded amerilards takes seriously
>mass-influence (useless hyphen btw) titanic amounts of people

My use of cuckservative is different from the usual NatSoc /pol/ack.
I fundamentally like conservatives but the thing they are being "cucked" to is Altruism and Immanuel Kant

Nigga shush I had an errand

how in the fuck are conservatives getting "cucked" by kant?

yes + extend to all anglos

By opperating off all his reason destroying premises.

>So Marx would be the greatest by this criteria
Forgive me by "mass-influence titanic amounts of people" I should have said "for the better" after it. Marx is only valid in his diagnosis of Capitalism, his proposed solutions are shit.

>What's meta about it
Objectivism is the only complete, devoid of contradictions, system of philosophy. It regards branches of philosophy as derivative from each other. Objectivism rejects the mental practice Rand termed as the "floating abstraction" that all other modes of Philosophy commit in small or large parts.

>How?
Her ethics of Rational Self interest is directly derivative from it's parent branches of Metaphysics and Epistemology. No assertion she makes is based on whim or committed two fallcies (that she coined) that other established philosophies need to rest on, in small or large parts.
The "Context Dropping Fallacy" and the "Stolen Concept Fallacy".

>Define "cultural Marxist"
youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y

>>Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy
>Every philosopher, not just Marxists, ignore Rand.
What I had meant here is the thing being "epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded" is the American Constitution.

>1. It's an economic system, not a moral one
>2. there are lots of moral systems that have been devised
She descibes why it is both. Capitalism is not just an arbitrary economic system but a concomitant effect of man's nature and what is required by it. Certainly there have been attempts to make moral systems, but Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the only valid one. Derivative, of course, off of man's nature and the laws of material reality

>But why's that good? I thought selfishness was all that mattered
Objectively defensible kindness IS to a man of reason's self interest champ. she also destroyed the view of Selfishness as being synonymous with activities of the mindless brute and instead as the moral virtue it actually is

>Marx's critique of capitalism is not a moral one
I wasn't aware we are assessing this by Marx's standards. We aren't. His failure to incorporate a moral standard to his ideas is no concern of mind or hers. Marx was largely ignored by Rand as she preferred to focus more of her intellectual ammunition on Immanuel Kant. A far more weighty adversary and whom she completely demolishes.

>Ok, provide the arguments then. I have no reason to believe this until you do.
Well I fucking hit the character limit answering this so instead I will just post this:
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
Altruism is NOT a synonym to kindness or benevolence as it is popularly taken to be. Altruism opperates on the basis that self sacrifice is the only thing that can justify a man's existence.
Read Auguste Comte then Rand's dissection of him

My own I guess.

>Bill Whittle
I like you.

>concern of mind or hers.
*of mine or hers.

Get this off of my board you communist rat

i thought you were joking lel

>Marx is only valid in his diagnosis of Capitalism, his proposed solutions are shit.
Read Marx, I very much doubt you've read either Capital or the Gotahkritik, because if you had you'd understand why this statement makes no sense.

I have not read Gothakritik, tell me about it if you would.
I assume by "solution", that appeared to you that I meant FOR Capitalism? No. I am very much aware what Marx viewed Capitalism as Communism in it's infancy. His "solution" was (essentially) to simply help Capitalism along in it's suicide. This notion was built on contradictory premises and facts he just flat was not cognizant of and it is this what is "shit".
I phrased that in the first manner that came to mind, excuse me.

I come back after a few months and it seems derrida has become a meme.
Kami Sama arigato

Ayn Rand is literally Max Stirner if he were a hick, and a bad writer.

Locke is whatever, no one takes political philosophy seriously except /pol/.

Aristotle is actually really good, but you probably don't understand why.

/pol/ needs to leave

Max Stiner's Egoism is a nihilistic, and therefore worthless, egoism and Rand's Egoism is completely superior to his.

>Aristotle
I most certainly do understand why Aristotle is a great read.
Holes in his methodology were improved upon later. But rather than even a small indictment to him; this was merely a consequence of science and reason itself still in it's infancy. For example it isn't really Aristotle's fault that he did not know what atoms were and what that lead him to. No one did. His (now known to be absurd) assumption that mateial reality is composed to immutable ""essences"" isn't even strictly WRONG conceptually; he just didn't know what he was looking at. Aristotle is the father of critical thought and the scientific method. As initially crude as this method was in it's infancy; it's principle was adamantine-clad and Aristotle's achievement in identifing it is utterly unmatched in history. In summary the direct, measurable, observable effects that his intellectual acheivement had on the world (and the other two on my list) is an order of magnitude greater than any other.

>Locke is whatever, no one takes political philosophy seriously except /pol/
Politics is Ethics-fork branch of philosophy you little shit. Maybe it is /pol/s perogative to care about such things but that doesn't make it an indictment to it's merit for discussion.
John Locke is easier (meaning shorter) to summarize why he holds his spot on my list. John Locke is the father of political individualism philisophically and is the single most driving force that made liberty and the advent of the United States possible. Locke is essentially the founding fathers summed up into one man and their direct philosophical impetus. Locke is the man would holds the title of "Founding Grand-father of the United States."

>Politics is Ethics-fork
*Politics is an Ethics-fork

You fundamentally misunderstand Stirner if you think his egoism is nihilistic. The care, love and levity in which he describes the various ways the state and other concepts do violence to the ego is pretty much the opposite of nihilism. Everything he writes about is to further arrive at the essence of the ego, and the various complexities necessary to begin to comprehend it.

Aristotle is good because he rendered useless the entirety of the scientific method and logical positivism in itself, literally before Christ was born. The only thing scientific reasoning could ever amount to was his notion of essences.

The fact that Locke's idealism was both philosophically, practically and historically dismantled by both the post modernists and reality itself is the cruelest and funniest thing history has ever wrought. I'll spell it out for you, if you buy anti-skepticism, reality has proven he's a fraud. If you buy post modernism, he was never worth anything in the first place. He's a literal charlatan.

Philosophically, locke's human rights requires the oppression of the marginalized. Freedom and justice for all except those that fall outside of my understanding of human. He always leaves room to ignore barbarians, and who is the one who decides who is barbaric? He does.

Practically, the liberty and justice that us in the united states have enjoyed STILL relies on the marginalization of various different types of people in different nation states or within our own borders.

Historically, john locke and his contemporaries literally owned slaves. They were such hicks that they could not even conceive of the notion that black people were human, beyond their orifices.Our understanding of humanity has had to evolve so many times to exclude his notion of barbarians, his "freedom" is a meaningless concept.

You have no understanding, of these "philosophers", and your brandishing has always and still is hurting a lot of people. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to be wrong and harmful.

>brandishing
*briganding

Don't mind me just permanently BTFOing philosophy

It's probably better to read Agamben: Beyond the Threshold of Deconstruction by Kevin Attell, rather than starting with L'albero del linguaggio and Stanzas, since you can write a 328 page book about it. In short, the disagreement is about Saussure's understanding of what a language is, Agamben thinks Derrida is stuck within the limits of Saussurian semiology. Meanwhile Agamben does the agambenian thing: the archaeology of knowledge, and goes all the way back to the Greeks to find out what this thing called "logos" is.

I assume you read Heidegger, since you care for Agamben and Derrida, if not read Heidegger.

As a Frog I'm willing to apologize for Sartre, Foucault, Deleuze and Bourdieu. (((Derrida))) is another story entirely.

this is the only correct answer.

That faggot Sokal BTFO'd Derrida over his lunch break, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on the french post-intelligables

my vote is yes

Not that user, but thanks for the recommendations. I've only read the Homo Sacer series so far and completely ignored this other earlier side of Agamben. I usually avoid 2ndary lit but Attell is one of his translators so I trust you it's good.
I knew he was very critical of Derrida from the few hints in Homo Sacer but I didn't know his earlier works contain a more explicit critique.

Friend he was a nihilist both in his attack on any notion of systemic philosophy as such and his attack on values held by others (either of the state or other men) as impositions on the individual to be rejected at his pleasure.
Ayn Rand's view of a logically defensible system of Ethics demanded by man's nature (and Metaphysical ly derived) if he expects to live in a world among beings of the same nature is completely better. The Anarchistic world of Stirner's ideal is utterly trumped by the Minarchistic one of Rand's.
LfCap>AnCap because Minarchism>Anarchism and in turn because Objective Law>Polycentric Laws. Laws both Stirner would reject as "Spooks" and "impositions on the individual".

>Philosophically, locke's human rights requires the oppression of the marginalized.
>marginaliazed
Did you seriously just use that word in concert with "oppression"? You cannot be serious, clearly you are some flavor of relativist.
>He always leaves room to ignore barbarians, and who is the one who decides who is barbaric? He does.
An objective standard of what constitutes civilization "decides" it. Some of the man's views on slavery are dated sure but the epistemological basises he opperated from are Rock solid. Locke's now known to be be questionable stances on slavery (which he still fundamentally opposed) were simply a product of his time and not an indictment to his philosophy whatsoever.
I'd advise you to be cognizant of the difference.

He is clearly human, not a rabbit.

John "If My Grad Student's A Girl I Take Her For A Whirl" Searle

>Hehe, nice coherent and rational argument you've got there. Would be a shame if someone were to "deconstruct" it.
>*writes some complete nonsensical but rhetorically talented bullshit full of buzzwords that cannot even be properly defined*
>hehe, looks like I win again. Empiricists and rationalists btfo. Muh mini-narratives

Post-structuralists are responsible for pic related and should be called post-intellectualists. That would be a better description for them.

You're just a weak-willed brainlet. His writing is more exact than those he attacks, which is the whole shtick of his method of critique, but it obviously requires some effort to enter his philosophy, as with any original philosopher who doesn't merely regurgitate common sense. Once you're in he becomes very clear and you will see how every one of his words is carefully placed to not contradict or mislead.

American pomo pseuds are only symptomatic of the general American culture. America is a giant Disneyland, so that's the kind of philosophy you get over there.

Political philosophy is not regular philosophy, it's practical effects and applications are valid criticisms against the theory itself.

That's why people become booty blasted at marxism for all the people it killed. It isn't super important that it wasn't ideal marxism, why did it turn out this way is an important question to ask. Otherwise political philosophy becomes worthless, since any means it aims to maximize/strive for would fall outside its purview. Allowing history and practicality to be part of the philosophy itself is necessary for any political philosophy discussion.

Objective standard of what constitutes civilization is basically a relativistic claim, unless you posit some strange godlike figure.

I mention the slavery bit because it's just a funny detail, it's not that having slaves meant his ideas couldn't be real, it's that historically he was btfo. Also it doesn't matter what "his" beliefs were. "He" can obviously be supplanted by the notion of civilization or any concept in particular, "civilization" is what decides who gets to not be a part of civilization, this isn't anywhere near objective.

The reason you think stirner is a nihilist is the same reason you can't comprehend the notion of why Locke's hidden realization of relativism undermines his philosophy. It isn't a nihilistic to say that things outside of myself are meaningless, and it isn't nihilistic to say that human rights are derived by some sort of father figure that Locke fetishizes. This isn't relativism this has been reality, i gave you those three examples so you could hopefully realize it.

Just because something is relativistic does not mean it is meaningless. You should read some berkeley if you want a metaphysical system that can be understood as subjective.

The fact that you get booty blasted at terms like oppression and marginalization explain why it is the year of our lord 2017 and you still think Locke is relevant.

Wrong. Political philosophical does not mean writing manifestos but studying politics as an object of theory. Marxism is a critical theory ("critique" in Kantian methodological sense) whose object of study is capitalism in particular and history of relations of production in general, whereas communism is a political project. The two are absolutely not the same, as any philosophy or sociology professor will tell you.

petition to ban everyone with 10 or more posts on /pol/

He's "french", AKA an algerian jew

A. You don't get to compartmentalize and discard a branch of philosophy because it isn't as fundamental it's parent branch of Ethics and it's grandparent branches of Metaphysics and Epistemology.
B. Locke wasn't just "hurr a political philosopher full stop". My criterion for having him second on my list of "3 greatest people" is that his intellectual acheivement for the time was an acheivement of great magnitude and the was the direct impetus to Thomas Jefferson and company.
C. I know full well improvements to his liberalism was improved upon later to render him """irrelevant""". But this would be like trashing Aristotle for believing in "immutable essences" because he didn't know what atoms were or his criterion for wisdom being simply what the wise noble men of his time choose to do.

>It isn't super important that it wasn't ideal marxism, why did it turn out this way is an important question to ask.
Please I'm all ears: I'd love to hear you wax apologist about Marxism. Marxism was observed to so trash economically that they divorced it from it after WW1 and married it instead to Cultural science. Blanking out the realization that it is Marxism itself they should have trashed.

>since any means it aims to maximize/strive for would fall outside its purview.
So you assert. I accuse of you committing the fallacy of the false distinction. What pray tell is this purview inherent to the nature of politics and why do "aims" fall outside it?

>Objective standard of what constitutes civilization is basically a relativistic claim
Objectivism rejects this notion. All modern first world nation's have and objectively definable and discernable set of distinctions that spearte it from the rest of the world. And America has an Objective set of distinctions that separate it from every other first world country.

>it's that historically he was btfo
The only manner in which this may be done is to rupture and hard-refutes his fundamental premises and present a better demonstrably superior explaination for the root issue involve. Locke's core premises are unassailable. I can then only assume you take then extent to which the flaws he DID possess were improved upon later as him "being btfo". If after hearing your explation of a flaw he possess, he is then immediately soft-converted to agreement; this isn't being "btfo" by any stretch.

>It isn't a nihilistic to say that things outside of myself are meaningless
You can't be serious.
I am not calling Stirner a nihilist, he isn't. I am calling his Egoism nihilistic in effect. 'In effect' no matter his intention. Flaws in a philosophers prose may lead to unintended conclusions of his meaning and basic premises. And this is what I accuse of him and Stirnerites. Nihilistic Egoism.

>You should read some berkeley if you want a metaphysical system that can be understood as subjective.
Any "metaphysical system" that purports to embody subjective identity I patently reject. Existence is an objective absolute

pls ban anglosphere

Is that Bill from Ted and Bills excellent adventure?

>Sokal
top kek. Sokal is the actual charlatan who has no background in philosophy.

>background in philosophy
Not him but this is an irrelevant qualifier.

How so?
>never studied philosophy
>imagine my shock when I don't understand these works which presuppose knowledge of philosophy
>therefore it must be all bullshit
It's like someone without background in science opening a scientific journal and proclaiming that journal is incomprehensible posturing.

Never studied philosophy *in an official capacity. If you can prove your breakout genius and prove your grasp of the topic of your observation this is an entirely sufficient alternative to the oft-repeated notion of peer review.

I know fuckall about this Sokal person so don't take this as a defense of him.

>That faggot Sokal BTFO'd Derrida over his lunch break
Wow, this is embarrassing. Sokal deliberately omits Derrida from Fashionable Nonsense because he couldn't find any of the offences in his work that he went looking for. This is said explicitly in the introduction.

Doguei love cofe

...