ROUND 2

Brackets are spooks

>tfw I included Nick Land, Slavoj Zizek and Diogenes but not Max Stirner
what do you think that says about his fandom

YO OPIE!

Did Seneca (rightfully) stomp Aurelius in the 1st round? If so, then why is he up against Epicurus in the "worst" bracket? Check your image if you don't follow me.

SHIT SON (sorry I'm drunk cuz it's new years)

here's the new poll:
polljunkie.com/poll/snnmed/epicurus-vs-aurelius
polljunkie.com/poll/moddzx/epicurus-vs-aurelius/view

smfh if Veeky Forums wasn't full of pseuds Donald Davidson would've beat Kripke and would be beating Peirce right now

Who's the 5%?

diogenes

Aristotle
Leibniz
Kierkegaard

>Leibniz
>Kierkegaard
>above Kant and Wittgenstein

>no Goethe
Plebz

I'm judging by intelligent ideas, and I think they are more creative.

I do not care what you think, brainlet.

LW would rank SK above him

Why not Plato? I think the Symposium alone is one of the most sublime works of philosophy. Plus, some of Aristotle is very common-sensical; I voted for Fatboy Aquinas in the current round.

Plato is formulaic, though innovative.

His best work is the work on political science. His ideas work well when he is describing utopias, oddly enough, because that is just how the Socratic method inevitably fits best with. Things like The Republic or Statesman.

(I do agree though, outside of his political and law works, Symposium is the most beautiful)

Aristotle new how to expand upon his ideas more so then plato, and I'd argue he did so much more articulately, with not just logic but feeling.

He could describe the Gods because he believed in the things that could describe the gods literally. Such as 'Science'.

He approached topics with a higher idea in mind.

>anyone above Leibniz

>Plato is formulaic, though innovative.
What does this mean? Are you talking about the elenchus or what?

>His ideas work well when he is describing utopias, because that is just how the Socratic method inevitably fits best with.
Have you read the Laws? There is an explicit rejection of some of his earlier thought in the Politeia (e.g. the free- vs. slave-doctor opposing the Politeia's "noble lie"). Plus, Socrates isn't even in that work; general consensus has it that it was written after Plato's wacky time in Syracuse, when he may have been disillusioned by the idea of philosophical utopias (though I don't think this is sufficient by itself to explain his evolution of thought).

Also, I'm no Straussian, but I think that there is a case to be made that Socrates is disengaged from the workings of Kallipolis; he describes a very austere ideal of a city before Glaucon interrupts, saying he wants to eat good food. In this passage (Bk. II, I think, but maybe Bk. IV), Socrates calls Kallipolis (the entire focus of the Republic's bulk) "a city for pigs." Is this utopia endorsed by Plato? His family were oligarchs, so... maybe. I haven't yet read enough to decide.

>Aristotle knew how to expand upon his ideas moreso than Plato
Aristotle was much more autistic than Plato, yes. There are two reasons for this: the first is hypothetical in sourcing the texts. By this theory, Plato's extant dialogues amount to promotional texts for the nascent Academy or else just rote memorization from his students. Aristotle's texts amount to lecture notes from students, with his more interesting dialogues lost to the sands of time. It's interesting, but I can't support its credibility or lack thereof.

The other reason is simple: Plato had a deep mistrust of the written word, tied up with his conception of anamnesis. [The latter part of the Phaedrus deals with this, as does Bk. X of the Republic.] Of course Plato doesn't want to spell out his theories! He wants students to think for themselves! At best, Socrates said, the written word could remind someone of what they had forgotten — but it could not teach them anything new. He had disdain for the poets because they spoke to our baser passions. [Iris Murdoch has a great essay on this, "The Fire and The Sun."]

>he did so much more articulately
Maybe "unambiguously" or "prolifically," but Plato had greater poetic chops than Aristotle (see Agathon's speech in the Symposium, proof that Plato could write excellent Greek tragedy and still chose not to!).

>with not just logic but feeling
Feeling is overflowing in Plato; I don't know what you're on. Again, Alcibiades' speech in the Symposium hits me dead in the feels evertim. Read deeper into Plato (e.g. soul as unmoved mover in Phaedrus, much of Aristotilean thought in the Sophist), and you'll find logic abound.

The rest of your post, respectfully, is fedora-tier.

>Maybe "unambiguously" or "prolifically," but Plato had greater poetic chops than Aristotle (see Agathon's speech in the Symposium, proof that Plato could write excellent Greek tragedy and still chose not to!).
Only if you think prose is more important than meaning, DESU.

>The rest of your post, respectfully, is fedora-tier.
Touche young one. But you should see the other guy.

You earn a picture.

>if you think prose is more important than meaning
That's literally the opposite of what I wrote. Plato could flex his poetic dick-muscles to prove that yes, anyone could write good prose and that philosophy was ultimately superior.

>You earn a picture.
Right back atcha'.

Come now, most of the reasoning of Plato is formulaic, you cannot deny. Although he is rigorous, the Socratic method is a METHOD. It is proven to work only if the opposing figure is actually readily responding in short, terse sentences. Socrates ran into some trouble in Protagoras, where the opposing figure, in this case Protagoras, could not just sit by while Plato just ran amok with telling him how to talk.

Basically it boiled down to
'Come on now everyone he has to say short answers, not give a lot of detail in a long-winded response'

And everyone agreed, of course.

It doesn't prove him right, actually it points to a very simple defect in the Socratic method. Clearly it is see through and if you have a point to prove that needs elucidation sometimes the opposing person doesn't play along.

The Republic is one of his best works, do not shit on this cornerstone of political philosophy. I have read that work twice now and I plan on reading it more in the future. This is a work of art. Beautiful. More references than most other dialogues, and rife with subject material and allegories, this book is one beautiful work of art.

The way it is constructed is beautiful as well. Most Platonic dialogues are, this one just strikes me as very well constructed, everything is thought out to detail the different modes and aspects of life that the citizen has, and using the Socratic method necessarily originates a perfect society, while developing and formulating a theological conception of the universe along with it.

Indeed, The Republic is a work on theology AND political philosophy. Please never talk shit about one of the greatest works ever made again. Thank you.

meh whats proves Aristotle to Plato is puny Pluto was a plateau in thought.

Aristotle's systems more easily molded through time, more fluid in that Aristotle never left of the throttle.

Aristotle also had better contemporaries.

>the Socratic method is a METHOD.
Dude, you should read the Meno and get back to me. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Plato's self-critique of the elenctic method. Basically, it boils down to:
>Meno: Socrates, what is virtue?
>Soc.: *does linguistic jewjitsu*
>Meno: Oh shit, I don't know what virtue is. I even gave many great speeches on virtue, can't remember worth a damn.
>Soc.: Yes, people who are virtuous are more often than not ignorant about the nature of virtue.
>Meno: Fuck you Socrates, how can you even ask questions about that which you do not know? Even if you did find what you were looking for, how would you recognize it as such?
>Soc.: Do you realize what a Sophist you're being? You just want me to praise your lil boipuss.
>Soc.: Knowledge is the process of the soul's remembering all that it forgot.
[In the Theatetus, Socrates describes his role as a midwife helping his students birth their own thought, not as a teacher.]
>Meno: Yeah, well, why is knowledge better than a true belief?
>Soc.: *gives birth to everlasting problems of epistemology*

Also, Meno critiques the elenchus as being wholly destructive, so Socrates sets out to show that his method can be used constructively (on the slave) to build knowledge as well as to expose ignorance.

>Clearly it is see through
Clearly, it is very closely related to Descartes' method, which is the cornerstone of modern philosophy. Protagoras does come the closest to BTFOing Socrates, though, you're right about that.

>do not shit on [the Republic]
Literally never did that. I said Plato rejected ideas in his later work, the Laws (which is true) and that Socrates may not endorse Kallipolis, the whole project of the dialogue (which is very probable; see Hippias Major for Socrates' spartan definition of "to kalon" over a goddamn figwood spoon). It's a great book. If you haven't already, you should read the Timaeus and laugh about how everything is triangles. [Remember, Europe had only Plato's Timaeus — no Republic, no Symposium — for a long time, so we thought that the entirety of Plato's magnificence was contained in this batshit crazy work.]

Millenia of Christian theologians, high artists and physicists disagree with you. Read pic related and tell me that Aristotle said it first.

>Aristotle had better contemporaries.
LEL, because Plato taught them well!

Ah yes, Phaedrus.

That excerpt you've posted has reminded me how compatible with Abrahamic religions Platonism can be. Aside from the polytheist and reincarnation, of course.

That excerpt basically is a proof for God. Beautiful.

You earn another photo, thank you for teaching me, I hope you like these ;)

you got a discord user?

Some learned people argue for this, but I'm almost positive Plato was not a polytheist. >Socratic daemon = Holy Spirit
>Demiurge + Forms ≈ Father (just don't ask the Gnostics)
But yeah, his reincarnation is pretty hard to jettison.

>thank you for teaching _(You)
lmao I just midwifed your knowledge baby, no teaching required.

I have a discord but I'm shy/forgot what it was.

post it user, i desire knowledge
im broke and smart, bout to go to school

please

I just want to know what books to read, and what areas to pay attention to

I'll show you my progress
i know you want this to

Ah no, I'm not a Christian either, I am one of those you see posting around here that believes in one God. None of that holy spirit stuff. I believe that Jesus existed though, and I think Socrates was very similar. Both were brilliant philosophers.

discord.gg/Te3TFP

here is mine at least.

i beg of u

w e w

Veeky Forums's opinions are actually so shit

>Plato had a greater poet chop
According to Cicero, Aristotle's prose was actually better than Plato's. We just don't have any of it.

>Peirce and Aristotle getting bullied
>Žižek worse than Land
Fuck's sake

>Hobbes is beating Liebniz
>St Aquinas is beating Aristotle
>Heraclitus is beating Plato

>NO GOETHE
PLEBZ

>Kant winning over Hegel
>Schoppy winning over Descartes

fuckin normies REEEEEE

that youre a brainlet who also included averroes over avicenna

>Heraclitus beating Plato
>Schoppy winning over Descartes
These are correct though.

bracket was artificially stacked for nietzsche. expect and neetch/witty final unpess plato pulls off an upset

It'll be a NEETzsche–Kant final

>It'll be a [refuted romantic] vs. [bunked philosopher]

Why couldn't it be Hegel vs. Plato

>calls Nietzsche and Kant refuted and bunked
>advocates for Hegel and Plato
Can't make this shit up

...

>aquinas vs aristotle
what did he mean by this?

>be Thales, the first philosopher
>divert a river so your friendly neighborhood army can cross it

>be Heraclitus, a worthless hack
>"The world is made of fire and rivers aren't real!"

aAAAAAHH WHY IS HE BEATING PLATO?! WHO RIGGED THIS?

IM SICK OF YOU CATHOLIC SPINOZIST LARPERS

>Plato is out

It's rigged. The votes for others all came at once and got rid of plato, socrates and aristotle

Hegel's spirit.
Heh.

yep

good job losers this bracket is over

OP here. This round is over due to that one retard. Ignore the results anyone who was winning before that guy started rigging stuff wins

Wittgenstein beats Quine
Frege beats Whitehead
Putnam beats James
Kripke beats Peirce
Kant beats Hegel
Spinoza beats Hume
Descartes beats Schopenhauer
Leibniz beats Hobbes
Kierkegaard beats Bergson
Husserl beats Deleuze
Nietzsche beats Merleau-Ponty
Heidegger beats Foucault
Plato beats Heraclitus
Augustine beats Seneca
Aristotle beats Aquinas
Socrates beats Averroes

Nietzsche is going to win so why even bother.

Singer over Rorty
Popper over Searle
Dennett over Chalmers
Russell over Davidson
Bentham over Locke
Voltaire over Fichte
Rousseau over Schelling
Mill over Berkeley
Sartre over Derrida
Lacan over Adorno
Land over Zizek
Camus over Marx
Boethius over Plotinus
Aurelius over Epicurus
Sextus Empiricus over Cicero
Diogenes over Epictetus

The Logos, which clearly escapes you.

I believe in the power of analytic autism.

yeah wtf, who let that happen

>Kant vs Hegel
Sway my vote, Veeky Forums

Where is Jordan B Peterson?

schopenhauer uber alles

>actually contributed to society in a profound way vs Heraclitus-LARPer
hard choice

>Schopenhauer over Descartes
How is this possible, Descartes is literally responsible for all of modern philosophy.

>implying that wouldn't be (if it wasn't an exaggeration) an argument in favour of Schopenhauer

But if you don't like modern philosophy, how can you like Schopenhauer? You're saying we should not like Descartes because he produced people like Schopenhauer.