What philosophers were right about humans?

It's all white males, what did history mean by this?

>slavs
>jews
>arabs
>white

Yes, white - they're all of the europid race

Diogenes, Heidegger, Foucault were all pretty based

I think socrates took sophism to its farthest logical extent and was on the verge of a classical greek postmodernism equivalent. I think it was right that he was executed for such a thing because holy shit look at where un-anchored philosophy has taken us today. I think plato recognized this and that's why his shit searches so hard for solid grounding, and where forms are useful.

just my 2 cents tho

yeah he is, the fat bastard

Can you show me some instances where Evola said feels are greater than reals?

Ayn Rand. Speaking of which, why isn't she on the image?

Because she wasn't famous enough, just like Stirner.

This explains why there's not alot of lolbertarians out there.

y no Burke

...

>libertarian
>philosophy

Besides if you actually read Rand you'd recollect she described herself as a purification of Aristotle and nothing more.

>Speaking of which
Speaking of witch*

This isn't even good bait.

Rand is pretty good

I'm not even baiting. Ayn Rand deserves to be on that image, regardless of whether you like her or not.

She is objectively right about the whole "great people need to prop up pathetic parasites" thing, but leftist let their fee fees get in the way of rational thought and just bitch about her while also intentionally taking her thoughts on the evil of altruism out of context in order to egage in strawmen arguments.

how do you call this style of drawing characters?

I take it some of you have read Ayn Rand's non-fiction work. I was thinking about buying it the other day at the book store. How is it?

...

Devo.
They were right about everything

How was Galileo a philosopher?

The same reason Ptolemy was, probably.

Not a single one of those are right. In fact, basically everybody on that stupid list is wrong about everything.

Memes

>u cant kno nuffin, not even about philosophy

...

Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want.

All of them in their specific context.

Nozick was a libertarian and a pretty good philosopher.

>no Evola
True, you can't have a real list of philosophers without meme man

>Europid race
Not a thing. Caucasian as a racial category includes Middle Easterners, North Africans, and even some Indians. /pol/ can't handle this fact so it invents a new fake category

>Ayn Rand deserves to be on that image
Why? Her impact on western philosophy has been negligible.

This

Yo the pic the source you took that from I need the name and where to find it.

Ayooo help a guy out here

Nietze

no pascal?

absolute garbage graphic !

>pythagoras
>no Nicomachus

>Adam Smith
>no Keynes

>Thoreau
>no Emerson

Enjoy.
exhentai.org/g/826878/7be28560f9/

>No Max Stirner
>FUCKING Zizek on the list

get fucked

Bakunin > Marx

...

>Machiavelli was right about humans
wut

>only leftists hate her nonsense
it's ass covering bullshit to frame it as morally right to exploit others, be greedy, and frames those who are unlucky and needy as being bad. It's pathetic. The real answer is that morals aren't real so do what you want

She's completely irrelevant. She's to philosophy what E. L. James is to literature.

>Hayek
>No Mises
Who made this degeneracy

Not a mises.org cultist, for starters

Hayek should be there tho

Economics was already professionalized by the time of Hayek, becoming a separate branch of study from philosophy. Same as natural sciences, which is why 20th century scientists aren't there.

Why would it include Hayek who is even LESS of a philosopher then Mises. You can tell just by reading the two that Mises is a better fit. Not really expecting you to read though.

Pfft, all categories are fake aka constructs. Categories are made up abstractions to put messy reality into neat little boxes.

Haploid groups aren't even that accurate at grouping humans.

...

I saw a book about him in Barnes and Noble, it was written by some woman, but I honestly never do read books by females.

>but I honestly never do read books by females.
I would only apply this to philosophy and literature, otherwise a solid decision

This is a great meme.

Mind if I take this image?

Joseph de Maistre and Julius Evola.

I really hope you aren't implying a reactionary can't enjoy Zizek.

Thanks man

who studied the most psychology and sociology and was around the nearest to right now? probably that person

>only two people of color
SICKENING

>linear evolution of knowledge
right

Zeno. /stoic/ master race.

They should get some better philosophers then.
WE

>socrates knew more about human nature than someone today with a phd in psychology and 30+ years experience doing research

>. The real answer is that morals aren't real so do what you want

in other words, shes right.

>the most important figure in philosophy knows less about humans than someone who studies a pseudo science
sure

I'VE GOT AN UNCONTROLLABLE URGE

Knowledge not necessarily accumulates linearly, but in the case of knowledge about the human psyche and societies it is definitely true anyways.

I'd say Spinoza has one of the better views of humanity. It's not as idealistic as Rousseau, not as pessimistic as Hobbes.

>someone who theorises instead of testing knows more than thousands of phd scholars with combined millions of hours of research

sure thing, bud :^)

>social studies
>viable
kek
proves literally nothing

Psychology isn't a science.

t. psychologist

Do you consider logic a science, how much is reason applied?

logic isn't a science it's a tool

The scientific method is derived from logic and is itself a logical process, a tool.

except science is a very specific field that relies on reasoning with empirical information and experimental data

logic doesn't necessarily require either of these

science requires logic but logic is not a science