OFFICIAL PHILOSOPHER RANKING THREAD - RANKED ACCORDING TO GNOSIS

How does REI rank in that categorization??

You have to go back.

Indeed, I must go back to the pleroma, eventually, but what does that have to do with my question??

Rei is a Mexican autist living in America. Hence he has to go back.

??
Go back where and why?
What does that have to do with this topic?
Maybe YOU should go to where you belong, 'cause you don't seem to belong in Veeky Forums.

Kierkegaard, Plato and Aristotle should be at whatever the highest tier is. Evolution, Nietszche, Sartre, and Lao-Tzu should not even be on here. Only a pleb would rank Heraclitus over Plato, but then only a patrician would rank Plotinus so highly????

>Plotinus higher than Plato
>Lao "I probably didn't exist and even if I did, I certainly didn't write the book people claim I did" Tzu so highly ranked
>no Zhuangzi
>Plato "the forms are real because I'm too autistic to handle subjectivity" in God tier
>Aristotle "I'm wrong about everything and my requirement of the unmoved mover is blown the fuck out by modern physics" in God tier
>Evola and Heidegger on the same level as Nietzsche (this one is especially hilarious)
>Hegel lower ranking than Schopenhauer

Other than that I don't really take much issue with this list, except my suspicion that you've been thoroughly memed upon.

>no Marx or Zizek

Kierkegaard is right on the line, you're right.

Any philosopher who privileges aesthetics like Nietzsche does is automatically high-tier

Hegel is on point but system-building is autistic and so is his reason worship

>tee hee he's choking the chicken get it???

This.

Daily reminder that literally any philosopher from the golden age of greece was better than plato and aristotle, and that democritus was right about everything he said.

Call him a kike and link him to VDARE

>>Plato "the forms are real because I'm too autistic to handle subjectivity" in God tier
Not to mention
>No Proclus
>No Mencius or Confucius

>geometry doesn't exist

wew
ewe
wew

>platonic forms are just geometry
>abstract geometry physically exists in another plane

Plato just said universals exist in an abstract realm that is determinative of their suchness down here in the phenomenonal world. Nominalists are autists supreme.

>"HE WHO HAS EARS TO HEAR..."-TIER:
Abhinavagupta
Bataille
Whoever wrote Thunder: Perfect Mind.
Marguerite Porete

>GOD-TIER:
Julian the Apostate
Merleau-Ponty
John Dee

>BASED
Edward Alexander Crowley
Schiller
Ferdowsi

geometric forms do literally exist though and shows that Plato wasn't just making things up whole cloth

>The authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, does not carry much weight with me. I should have been astonished, if you had brought forward Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius, or any of the atomists, or upholders of the atomic theory. It is no wonder that persons, who have invented occult qualities, intentional species, substantial forms, and a thousand other trifles, should have also devised spectres and ghosts, and given credence to old wives' tales, in order to take away the reputation of Democritus, whom they were so jealous of, that they burnt all the books which he-had published amid so much eulogy.

>muh atoms
>dude were made of stuff lmao

Trivial and inconsequential.

Cool, thanks for your contributions, bro

>no Albert Magnus
>no Anselm
>no Hans Blumenberg
>no C. S. Pierce
>no Jakob Böhme
>no John Duns Scotus
>no John Scotus Eirugena
>no Leibniz
>no Locke
>no Max Scheler
>no Meister Eckhart
>no Parmenides
>no Peter Abelard
>no Proclus
>no Whitehead

>NO L*A*N*G*A*N

Goddammit son, you know I've read Langan too and think he's based as fuck?

Been reading some of his stuff. Goddamn, based Abhinavagupta

>no bullshit con artist who made up a whole bunch of gibberish and wasted everyone's time with semantic games

Truly today's version of Hegel

u mad brainlet

>Nominalists are autists supreme.

That doesn't follow. Being able to handle ambiguity and disorder, which is required of a nominalist position, is absolutely not an iconic trait of autists.

Being hyper literalist and not being able to comprehend abstract concepts is also autism/nominalism.

In what way does it exist? The shapes we measure with geometry exist. But the formulas and equations we use to measure them, as well as the measurements themselves are just abstractions of our mind.

>Plato just said universals exist in an abstract realm that is determinative of their suchness down here in the phenomenonal world.

Actually he said they exist in a spiritual realm as actual, objective things that absolutely embody these ideas. His concepts of moral and ideological realism couldn't be sustained without them, and there's a reason this is one of the most consistently rejected portions of his philosophy.

But that's not required of nominalism. A nominalist can comprehend these abstractions just fine, they just recognize them as subjectively held abstractions. Realists can't handle the ambiguous and uncertain existence of these abstractions, and instead choose to posit they have an objective existence, IE that their view is universal and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to get it (for instance, Plato's characterizing anyone that disagrees with him as a blind cave dweller that doesn't love knowledge). This is far more fitting of the iconic autist.

Abstract forms do exist, if I say "cube" you know what I am referring to; it's not an imaginary thing. If you can't understand this, congratulations you have autism.

There is nothing subjective about a cube. It has a very objective definition.

Not really. The term cube itself is just an abstraction to describe something that has no universal existence. You wont find the concept a cube etched into the substructure of the universe.

Congratulations you are both autistic and misinformed:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_crystal_system

Tantraloka's a masterpiece, it's a shame I've only got a handful of chapters digital.

Spoken like a true cavecuck

to me my fave philosophers are

Zizek, Stirner, Nietzche, Subcommandante Marcos and Nestor Makhno

i want to study philosophy
how do i start?

With the Greeks.

>hating on analytics
Undegrad-tier

Do I? I may have a chart that matches words to shapes that I may refer to when the situation arises, but I cannot be sure the one I'm dealing with has the same chart.

dude p therefore q lmao

trash. Rankings are based on level of gnosis m8

>being this sped

shouldn't you be organizing your VHS collection by color right now or something?

Where does my boy Marcus 'Big Dick' Aurelius fall on the list?

Mfw Jesus is in not under God-teir
> get it

I don't consider either philosophers. Aurelius just rehashes stoic maxims, Jesus and the Buddha are just too ascended to count. Same for Lao Tzu desu

the band Creed

Aurelius is the closest thing to Plato's Philosopher King, and his Meditations has become a keystone of Stoic philosophy. I'd say he counts.

Jesus is under "The Way, the Truth, and the Life" tier.

Take the bread pill.

Yea yea save it for Jaspers

Read Epictetus.

>Dude Democritus' theory and modern atomic theory are LITERALLY explanations of identical phenomena referring to what Democritus conceived of and which I conceive of as identical structures

>Aurelius is the closest thing to Plato's Philosopher King
[citation needed]
"He wrote one whole book about stoicism" isn't proof.

>no Camus
kys

>le nihilism

>>>/freshman orientation/

>absurdism = nihilism
wew lad

>(((absurdist))) using mathematical symbols

Bahahahha

>troll list full of coffee shop tier intro

lmao yeah ok kid

No Carl Schmitt?
No C.S. Pierce?
C'mooooon dogg

Ranked according to transcendental insght. Make your case.

Schelling and Shestov essentials?

Google Shestov, all of his works are available for free. Athens and Jerusalem is his central work. His thesis: reason is a great tool but a terrible master, the highest aspirations if man can never be fulfilled in the causal realm.

Schelling is a bit denser and more involved in the German idealism he is reacting to. If you can handle it, Inquiry into the Nature of Human Freedom is one of a kind - a metaphysics of evil written by a thinker who isn't afraid to talk about evil and melancholy, as well as refusing to sacrifice the richness of life for the sake of some autistic system that privileges the whole over the individual.

>Subcommandante Marcos
He's a philosopher??

What has he done on philosophy?

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_crystal_system

Again, whether that is or is not a cube is a distinction of our mind. The universe has no knowledge of it.

>The universe has no knowledge of it

What the fuck am I looking at?

An analogy to this guy's argument

>dude what if our minds aren't real xD

You're gonna need to explain it.

It exists in so far as any thought can be said to exist, but the universe will never call or recognize that as a cube, only we do. It's "cubeness" exists only in our heads.

>WHAT IF OUR THOUGHTS DON"T EXIST XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD HOW AM I EVEN COMMUNICATING RIGHT NOW

Okay kiddo, the universe is not a conscious being therefore, the existence of things do not depend on the universe's "recognition" or whatever you mean by that
>do I even need to explain this?
Logic for example exists even if nobody is thinking it, it's not because we think of it that stuff exists but because they exist we are able to have to have them in our head

Are you that jackass that starts metaphysics threads and calls people brainlets?

>Okay kiddo, the universe is not a conscious being therefore, the existence of things do not depend on the universe's "recognition" or whatever you mean by that

The distinction of things as things or not things does indeed require the recognition of thinking beings; you will not find a cosmic ledger with the words "THIS IS A CUBE" and a little picture of a cube beside it out there. The cube is not actually a thing in a universal sense, a "cube" is just our description of these objects that happen to correspond to our agreed upon definition.

>Logic for example exists even if nobody is thinking it, it's not because we think of it that stuff exists but because they exist we are able to have to have them in our head

Depends what you mean by logic. I would contend it doesn't exist at all, but is purely a mental process for systemization and understanding.

...

No.

I like that picture. Is it from something?

>Schiller
Good post, have you also read Fichte, the Humboldts and Herder? I would also include Goethe himself, but in the highest tier.

It is fine art.

I see where you're going, and you're right when you say that an idea is not a thing in a real or cosmic sense
Still, existence is not limited by that. the mere existence of thought is undeniable and you will not find it like you say with >a cosmic ledger with the words "This is thought"

Well, I don't deny that thought exists, but I think if we're going to hold thoughts as something distinct from what is real (so that imagining a horrible crime wont be the same as committing it, for instance), we ought to hold it as something separate from reality itself, which leaves nominalism as the conclusion (assuming that we aren't tapping into some sort of idealistic realm of pure thought when we engage in thought).

>Are you that jackass that starts metaphysics threads and calls people brainlets?

He indeed seems to behave a lot like our Æutistic friend we all know and laugh at

>aristotle
>in same tier with kant
you need to work on your tierization senpai

Yeah I agree, autistotle belongs in shit tier Tbh

As I understand Plato, he was saying, regardless of how we conceptualize them, there is something in the underlying structure of reality responsible for such a thing as reds, or the cube-ness of a cube.

Or in other words, because we live in a reality where such a thing as a table is cognisable - is consistent with the universe - then there is something transcendent determining this, as opposed to some reality where blarblorbs and kolblarbs exist.

These are extremely difficult ideas to communicate intuitively - but the question is, sure there are tables, and all tables are different from one another, what is it that makes such a thing as a table possible?

>what is it that makes such a thing as a table possible?

The physical laws of the universe which we've utilized to create tables, but that's not really the same as there being a tableness which has preceded the creation of the table.

No. You're taking it too literally. The idea of a table is a flat surface with supports on which we place things or whatever. We live in a universe in which such a thing is possible hence there is an idea of a table because it intrinsically follows from these laws and structures you are referencing, such as gravity, the human mind, etc.

The idea of a table was latent in the human mind, which is latent in biology, which is latent in physics, which is latent in Being, which is latent in Beyond-Being.

All these discussions about the objectivity of some universal usually miss an important detail: we can only make assertions about things insofar as we know them, that is, insofar as they are relative to our knowledge; so, if I say that universals have an existence independent of my mind, that will PRACTICALLY mean nothing tom me if I still can go on without thinking about them. However, if I say that universals exist only in my mind and I don't want to make a tautology (that is to say, saying that to exist = to be thought by me), I will have to say that their OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE is limited to my own perception, which is the same as trying to say something positive about an "existence-in-itself", that is, is the same as trying to say that I know how things are when "I am not knowing them".

>no ibn arabi

>Lao-Tzu
I don't think OP has done anything besides Wikipedia philosophy. The very first thing we did in Asian philosophy was debunk everything 'he' said.

Seriously, primitivism is one of the most fundamentally flawed schools of thought there is. If you don't realize this, please fucking leave this board forever.

>Mencius
now we talkin real talk nigga