Who is the worst canonical philosopher

Came here to say this.
Pic is me.
Aristotle and Aquinas were based, cunt.

>mfw Nazis don't know that they can easily use Continental philosophy to support themselves

Leibniz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both of those

no

t. Wittgenstein

Though I love their writings I think Leibniz and Schopenhauer were the worst at impacting philosophy in any big way.

that's because Leibniz was murdered and his writings suppressed by a grand global conspiracy to prevent philosophy from progressing t. Kurt Godel

Leibniz is literally the most incoherent bullshit ever written. His theories were written after Spinoza, whose system in Ethics proved his and Descartes as bullshit.

How did Spinoza prove Descartes wrong?

Schopenhauer is a dead end, doesn’t deserve the prominence he gets.

Berkeley is always mentioned but he also is a totally irrelevant dead end.

Descartes had one good idea.

Russell contributed nothing of lasting value to philosophy.

Husserl is of no value in himself, he just set of Heidegger to do actually important work.

Fichte is the worst of the German idealism quad, Schelling is underrated though.

I don’t understand by Habermas is such a big deal, that one’s probably more on me.

Why aren't you reading pic related right now, user?

Confirmed for having never actually read Leibniz. His ideas are a bit wacky but he's really clear and a very solid arguer.

On the other hand, Spinoza's a total mess, and Ethics is silly as fuck. The geometrical method would be interesting but he was definitely not able to pull something like that off.

>Berkeley is always mentioned but he also is a totally irrelevant dead end.
Idk I think he deserves more attention. The rejection between primary and secondary qualities was one of the most brilliant moves in western philosophy imho

Feyerabend. Shittiest philosopher of science and a fucking pseud as well.

>Descartes had one good idea.
Singlehandedly taking on and defeating global skepticism? Singlehandedly refuting all the Scholastics? Coming up with an actually self-evident foundation for knowledge? Refocusing western thought on the thinking mind rather than shit like "forms" "essences" and "the four causes" and shit? Reframing the entire world in order to create a metaphysical foundation for modern science?

>dude fuck the thinking subject shit's just real lmao

>started biblical scholarship
>argued for democracy and liberal freedoms before it was cool
>got the worst recorded excommunication in history
>after rustling the Hebrews, he moved on to destroy the Cartesians and scholastic metaphysics
>lived in downright poverty because he refused money from his friends
>was absolutely despised right after his death as a dangerous atheist
>they still couldn't say one bad thing about his temperament

How can one Jew be so based?

>spotted the brainwashed liberal

all of that is about as bad as it gets

He's up there with Jesus Christ and Larry David.

hey you forgot billy bob thornton

>Refocusing western thought on the thinking mind rather than shit like "forms" "essences" and "the four causes" and shit?
Oh boy oh boy. He thinks this is a good thing.

t.

Yeah, it was a goddamn dead end. Get fucked.

We had more than a thousand years to talk about aristotelian ontology user, give it a rest.

This thread is so shit

Talking about the rationalists ;
Wolffe's formalisation (and Baumgarten's additional card deck : the Aesthetic) were miles away from Leibniz, Spinoza is a shitty mess which is used nowadays to shit on Hegel in increasingly weaker ways, Descartes was floating above all of them, Malebranches is fun.

As far as german idealism is concerned, progress indeed followd the chronological order - which is so coherent with the very ideas of these philosophers it's beautiful.

Btw i'm voluntarily not answering OP's shitty question.

Hoo boy, get a load of these hotheads

Has he been refuted?

Hegel. It is like philosophy became just a form of art.

Hegel?

I kind of feel the same way about Derrida.

...

The Ethics is airtight af

the social contract theorists were all working off premises based on factually inaccurate anthropological ideas, making their arguments unsound across the board. some of the writings are fine though. leviathan is still worth reading.

the other answer is any of the literary theorists that get taken seriously, since all their shit is unfalsifiable on top of being deliberately obscurantist.

Russell and Sartre are the worst two by a mile

he has his place

I didn't think any real philosophers took Sartre seriously, he just has name recognition

Russell isnt even that bad

>Spinoza's a total mess
M8 how, how on this planet could you ever claim such a thing? The ethics may be one of the most well constructed works of philosophy ever made. Sure you may disagree with the stated premises, but his logical chain following from those starting points is pretty near flawless.

>flawless logical chain
>he kicks off the book with the fucking ontological argument

also existence is not a real predicate

All of existentialism is such a weird aberration in philosophical history. Despite being one of the philosophical movements which is most known to the public it’s had basically no lasting impact in academic thinking.

Sartre is probably the greatest example of an overrated philosopher. The work for which he is most famous, Being and Nothingness, in my opinion does no convincingly elaborate on its Heideggerian roots, and it’s extended critic of Freud is idiotic.

Unfortunately for Sartre the book that he claims is his principle contribution and great work few have read. Critique or Dialectic Reason came around the time that Althusser was formulating his anti-humanist structuralist Marxism, which totally displaced everything Sartre had to say on the topic,

>Heidegger
>no lasting impact on academic thinking

Obviously most of the French but really, its just to be taken as performance art, like Alex Jones

Heidegger is the 20th century’s most important philosopher. Sartre is just a Frenchman who repeated him without actually understanding the deeper questions Heidegger was investigating, and did basically nothing to elaborate Heidegger in any important way.

Despite being far less famous Merleau-Ponty actually did more to advance the Heideggerian project and Sartre by an order of magnitude.

Boethius
Anyone who disagrees is a faggot.

Russell really is truly awful. Early Wittgenstein is also shit but fortunately he redeemed himself with his later works. Unsurprisingly, B.R. took great offense to his former pupil's later artistic license.

Sartre likely has little value to "real philosophers", but he at least has some literary merit.

> Kierkegaard
> no lasting impact on academic thinking

>Russell really is truly awful. Early Wittgenstein is also shit but fortunately he redeemed himself with his later works.
The Tractatus is only shit if you understand it like Russell did.

He's cucklord magnifique

>Early Wittgenstein is also shit
cringe

what's wrong with Boethius? I'm planning on reading him

Schopenhauer got it pretty much as good as anyone else, about as well as you can get it.

>Rick and Morty
>no lasting impact on academic thinking

There's nothing wrong with the ontological argument desu. The problem is just its being used to argue for a personal God, if you already accept the basic premises of ontology and the distinction between being and Being, it's no less controversial.

Fredric Jameson does, even wrote a fucking book about him.

Le >H>R>E man already BTFO him

he's actually right about a lot of stuff, wrong about some of it, and he's not canonic

He completely dismantled Descartes' mind-body binary. The mind and body do not exist in opposition to one another, which was kind of foundational to Descartes' entire philosophy.

Explain. I've read the Tractatus twice but it's been a while. As far as I can recall, it's aim was to describe the objects of the universe only as they could be arranged by logical propositions.

Admittedly, I only lately began thinking about that book again after just finishing a book by Russell. That book was so bad I actually threw it in the garbage after reaching the last page.

Oh Spinoza is my God ! And not a transcendental one of course

Locke is so fucking shit. He is just a massive joke.

are you this autist?
m.youtube.com/watch?v=-W8fA0Z2cRE

I have a book of Russell quotes and it's hilariously cringy.

>"After a century or so in the darkness, the idea that minds play a central role in constituting reality is once more emerging into the philosophical sun. This welcome collection explores idealism in many different forms, and makes a strong case that it is a living view that may shed light on many philosophical problems."
--David J. Chalmers, New York University

What was that about Berkeley being irrelevant again? kek

only 3 philosophers worth reading are the three A's: Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas
if you disagree with this you are a new atheism redditor

Plato and Plotinus are also worth reading. I mean how the fug can you recommend Augustine but not mention Plotinus. Hell, if you're going to mention Aquinas you may as well mention Ibn Rushd and Maimonides as well.

>implying I've even read the ones I mentioned
I just wanted to meme

Foucault.

why are you including a jew and a muslim? this is a Christian board

>As far as I can recall, it's aim was to describe the objects of the universe only as they could be arranged by logical propositions.
That's the logical positivist (mis)interpretation. It was more a ridicule of undertaking that sort of task. 6.54 is the most important proposition of the book but is also the one disregarded by the positivists because it doesn't fit with everything else. And it doesn't; the whole point is to re-frame the rest of the text - making it into an experience (sort of like a Kierkegaardian indirect communication) bringing one to knowledge by showing the whole effort of logical examination of the universe, picture theory, etc. is a farce. Only the preface, 6.54 (and 7) aren't "senseless".
There's not such a massive break between the early and late W.

Rorty on different interpretations of W: wittgensteinrepository.org/agora-ontos/article/viewFile/2247/2233

>why are you including a jew and a muslim? this is a Christian board
Aquinas was influenced by them. If you read Aquinas you are implicitly acknowledging them anyway. Basically what you're saying is that Aquinas, were he alive today, would not be welcome on your Christian board because he reads books you don't like.

yeah psychophysical parallelism is really plausable stuff

if matter and mind arent causally related why didnt he just go full idealist like leibniz?

>: Than you! I assume the proposition referenced is the ladder one right? I've never heard of the text being interpreted as a mock-up. I'm not exactly convinced, but I'd like to believe, especially with my recently kindled hatred for the inhuman logical atomists.

Going to give the Rorty essay a read now. Thanks again.

If this is a Christian board then you all are doing awful imitation of Christ.

Based quints.

I can't tell if I'm having trouble parsing your statement because it's written poorly or because you misinterpreted my post. On top of which I'm not well-versed enough in Spinoza, Descartes, or Leibniz to give much beyond back-of-the-napkin synopsis.

But as far as I can tell, Descartes placed the mind in opposition to the body as well as the entire world/universe/whatever exterior you please. Spinoza basically argued mind and body exist in a sort of eternal feedback loop between us and our surroundings and the mind and body are too intimately linked for any boundary or dividing line to exist between them.

Wittgenstein
Plato
Neitzsche
Heidegger
Kant
Hegel
Schopenhauer

We were doing the worst, not the best