Who is/was the smartest/best jewish philosopher?

>freud
Allers destroyed him

Their were no jewish philosophers and their never will be. The jew hates wisdom, he decries its existence and tries to tear it down wherever he sees it.

It's impossible for a Jew to be a philosopher. Take Wittgenstein, the "smartest" of this bunch, he wrote pages and pages obfuscatory bullshit about meaningless grammatical minutiae. Given that Jews can only have a high verbal IQ, this makes him the epitome of all Jewish "philosophy", with Derrida close behind.

Verbal intelligence is what you need to do good philosophy, doofus.

No spatial intelligence is actually more important, though verbal is of course helpful

Idiot, Wittgenstein is probably the least obscure philosopher there ever was, if he's hard to read its because he's too clear and logically consistent for a mind to easily process

BASED CENTIPEDES

How?

Spatial intelligence is for physics, engineering, architecture, etc.

No its not actually, spatial intelligence is actually associated with imagination. The ability to construct and envision various hypothetical and likely states of affairs in ones mind

Surely clarity of thought and grasp of language is more important than that.

The most ignorant, for sure. The smartest? He was smart, for sure, but it's easy to crap on the history of philosophy when you don't know it nor understand it.
Kripke, Maimonides and Spinoza are the only ones that I could catalog as jewish philosophers, in the sense that they are really into orthodox jewish subjects.

I disagree, many of the most important philosophers in history did not have particularly clear and concise language.
Leave clarity to the secondary material writers, actual ideas are what makes a thinker

t. low verbal iq

That has more to do with the newness or difficulty of their ideas, or sometimes just rushing.

Also, verbal intelligence is linked to abstract reasoning and problem solving.

this guy

Philosophy by its very nature resists both language and problem solving in an ordinary sense however.
I think in a certain sense you have to despise language to be a philosopher

AND WHAT OF ARENDT?

That sounds like a Continental assertion. "Reality is ungraspable/ineffable/unspeakable etc."

But if you can't explain what you're talking about, then you have not explained anything at all.

/thread

>That sounds like a Continental assertion

But of course, and a true one. Who says philosophy has to explain anything, from the very beginning with Socrates all he did was expose the fundamental ignorance in what we take for reality

>Surely
lol

So... Nobody here studied philosophy?

I have a degree in philsophy actually

Aristotle was Jewish

And you are the
>That sounds like a continental assertion
or the
>Philosophy by its very nature resists both language and problem solving
?

>jews can only have high verbal intelligence

Take a guess

Both sounds like they haven't studied philosophy. But because of the arrogance, I guess the "continental assertion" guy.

People who are serious about philosophy don't waste their time with smartest/best threads.

>Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Wow, so profound.

Really is though. Its beautifully poetic too

Please, tell us what you think it actually means.

>tautologies are profound

Jesus, John, Paul

Whereof one can not speak, one must pass over in silence.

I mean, strictly speaking, tautologies are neither profound nor devoid of meaning, they just are. That's the definition of a tautology.

>That's the definition of a tautology.
You know you can google something before you post it, right?

Not him but you might want to do some googling yourself

That's just some translation, user.

>they just are.
No, thanks. I have done my readings.

Are you going to explain your reasoning then or are you just going to hide behind an imaginary proof

Just hide. I like to watch down from my tower. And I don't work for free.

Are you going to explain your interpretation or are you just going to hide behind a mysterious aphorism?

t. pseud

Isn't the aphorism more or less saying he has no choice but to do the latter?

Its not exactly mysterious. Its Wittgenstein, after delineating the limits of language throughout the tractatus, that any attempt to analytically clarify what is ineffably beyond language is an illegitimate project.
The beauty in it to me however is its preservation of the legitimacy of the ineffable itself.

>that any attempt to analytically clarify what is ineffably beyond language is an illegitimate project.

Which is simply his opinion, and poetry literally proves him wrong by definition.

youtube.com/watch?v=DRI_ZSh6iF4

speaking of Wittgenstein. Has anyone watched this documentary? Is it click-baity, or is there a real connection between these two figures. Also if anyone could identify the piece at 14:54 it would be much appreciated.

I think "futile" would be a better word for it.

Except poetry is explicitly non-analytical!
Christ almighty, that's the entire point of poetry, the moment you reduce it to its propositional content is the moment it dies. That's the whole point Wittgenstein was making, there are experiences outside what language can logically convey yet though we can not truly speak of them they are very much part of our experience

>Googling yourself

Nah, I'm on no fap atm.

>Which is simply his opinion

Only if you can find fault with the rest of the Tractatus dingus. There's a reason this was the last line of the book

not really

>Christ almighty, that's the entire point of poetry, the moment you reduce it to its propositional content is the moment it dies.

lmao this is absolutely the kind of brainlet fraudulence I heard for 10 years in my phil department.

A poem like "Dulce et decorum est" literally is about its propositional content you doofus, and it dies without it.

Adorno.

He ruined Heidegger.

Wittgenstein is a gimmick.

>Dulce et decorum est

Dude war is bad

And your point is?

Stellar argument.

That if something could be written any other way then it wouldn't need to be a poem

lrn2writt
lrn2thnk

You're absolutely retarded and answers like this is why analytics get the charge of autism.

The point is *how* war is bad, and the images that a poet produces to that effect.

But yes, of course, when you're an autist like yourself and can't appreciate beauty, I can see that it's simply easier to say "War is bad".

no competition

You seem to have brought in some baggage that is giving you some idea of what it is you're meant to be arguing against but you're entirely missing what I'm actually saying.
I'm saying precisely that poetry is needed because we can't get certain ideas and experiences across simply through analytic discourse. That you can write as many essays as you want detailing why war is bad like Chomsky but nobody may give a shit.
Yet it takes simply one poem because of the strange immanence of how it connects to us beyond the simple logic of language that can really change a heart deeply.

> propositional content
Is this a metaphysics thread now?

This
/thread

Your post sounds oddly religious. And poems don't connect to us, we connect to them.

>Your post sounds oddly religious
Wittgenstein was oddly religious

Are you Wittgenstein?

Yeah but when you post shit like this you're giving the impression that everything you need is the kind of shit that Chomsky writes, which is wrong.

I made that shitpost to show how reducing poetry to its logical content kills the point of it. That you can do that to any piece of art which shows the limits of language more than art.

Ben Shapiro

But it doesn't kill the entire point of it, because it's literally the premise of the poem.

Propositional content and aesthetics aren't completely separate. This is the reason why shit like Finnegan's Wake is almost impossible to read, primarily because it lacks so much of the former and tries to make language completely borderless and unconstrained.

Naturally but that is not relevant to what I've been saying. Which is merely that propositional content *alone* isn't enough to capture experience. Which is actually a radical divergence from the analytic tradition Wittgenstein was writing against.

good post

Spinoza.

>Jews can only have a high verbal IQ
Not when racially mixed.

>Propositional content and aesthetics aren't completely separate.
Trying to match something that in nature is non intentional with something that is purely intentional is not going to lead you far.

Why?

It depends on what you mean.

I mean sometimes it's more forceful and meaningful to literally say "I love you" to your wife, and another day it might be more forceful and meaningful to invite her to a candlelit dinner ready with a bottle of wine, but these two things are not mutually exclusive.

>propositional content *alone* isn't enough to capture experience
which relates to the second part of the aphorism, about actively silencing the unutterable

You are going to turn one of them into the other. Thinking that you need to have a "propositional content" to convey a message is killing the point of aesthetics. Is bringing "right or wrong" to something that doesn't have any epistemic value.

>Thinking that you need to have a "propositional content" to convey a message is killing the point of aesthetics.

>This he says while literally the opening line of The Stranger is "Mother died today".

Which is in relation to "speech" as in semantically reducible discourse. Not all possible expression

wew lad, great example and great argumentation.

>Spinoza

The guy is a hack. His argument against free will is that if you were a rock with consciousness falling down a hill you'd believe you were falling of your own volition.

Well it's a pretty good argument though given that nobody can actually know whether rocks actually have consciousness or not.

> great argumentation.
>B does not necessitate A
>"Yeah but here's an example of A & B"

No it isn't you fucking idiot

>What is conatus?
If you do something is because you were made for that. I like him.

I'm not sure I understand you. Do you think of propositional content as being intentional?

I would fail you so bad.

And I'd wipe my ass with whatever qualification relies on you