Deepest Philosophers

>spinoza at the surface
>plato and socrates are separate
i don't even know why im replying

>Discuss
ugh

ugh ugh ugh

so "depth" means "how much I like this philosopher" or what

Are there any good compilations of his works that you can recommend?

Meh. I'll take rigor over "depth" any day.

Why don't you just become a STEM major while you're at it if you only care about methodical "facts" that require minimal deep, truly-critical thought?

i like the way stemfag is an insult here

Said the obviously innumerate.

>Marx, Zizek, Sartre, Lacan, Nietzche all that deep
>Schopenhauer and Kant that shallow

You couldn't even count the neurons that compose my mind, let alone the thoughts that commute through them.

I can count to 2, user.

woah...really makes u think...

Schopenhauer would be deservedly shallow on any more accurate graph

remember guys,

this chart is completely objective.

>Sellars nearly at the top of the iceberg
God, I hate you

Sage

H E L P

>Kierkegaard
>Deep
Nigga, I love me some Kierkegaard. But he's not particularly hard to read, at all.

>Plato and Socrates
>As if they were different people

Excellent bait. Soon you will be ready to move beyond template bait and be able to craft bait all of your own.

it's not about how hard he is about how deep he is.

hahahaaa
ooo
brutal

ZING

>Guattari above Deleuze
???????????
anyway he's absolutely not top 3 deepest but I do recommend everyone read some Levinas

SAVAGE

L Ron Hubbard
Dr. Laura Schlessinger

lol why are all the 20th cent analytics in a single band

...

WARNING RETRO MEME AHEAD WARNING

that's what she said

Fucking LOL at Marx being considered "deep."

Even bigger LOL at Plato above water, Aristotle slightly below, and Socrates half way down.

>Plato and Socrates not at exactly the same level
>Plato and Socrates not listed as Socrates/Plato

imaging believing that you can't separate Plato and Socrates in the 21st century still

Fucking painful, but here, have a (you).

Terence Mckenna deserves to be way deeper senpai.

FUCK OFF JUNKIE DEGENERATE

Veeky Forums IS AN xXxSTRAIGHTEDGExXx BOARD.

>Foucalt in the deepest end
Wew, more like derpest end desu senpai

You should read The Concept of Irony.

You're a fucking retard if you think there is any significant difference between the two.

if you are trying to make fun of people who don't do drugs you are failing miserably

Fuck you, druggie.

>putting the philosopher of surfaces that deep (Baudrillard)

>Sartre deeper than Marx
you fucking troglodyte

Is there a similar chart for authors?

See what weed does to you? This guy probably thinks he's being funny.

BTFO

Actually, I'm dead serious. Druggie degenerates have no place on Veeky Forums. If you use or have used recreational drugs or mind-altering pharmaceuticals you should seriously and sincerely consider suicide. Your addictions will only get worse until you are forced to steal or murder to sustain them; I, and most other rational, drug-free, people urge those who use drugs to kill themselves.

Kirkegaard, Foucault, Heidegger and Derrida are as basic as they get

>forced to murder
2/10
leave that out next time its too obvious

some people above the water have nearly the same philosophy as people at the very bottom

thanks for the bump. keep it up

depth of readers does not equal depth of thought

Fact: Drugs are addictive.
Fact: Addicted people will go to desperate lengths to satisfy their addictions.
Fact: This includes theft.
Fact: Druggies are stupid.
Fact: A druggie will, therefore, be compelled to steal even when he knows that the owner is present.
Fact: This will result in an altercation.
Fact: Drugs make you violent.
Fact: If the druggie is still physically capable of violence this will potentially result in a murder.

Therefore, a druggie is willing (and potentially) able to murder to sustain its addiction. As a consequence it is the duty of all rational and self-preserving drug-free individuals to urge druggies to commit suicide before this chain of events inevitably happens. If said druggie is unwilling to do so it becomes the duty of the state to euthanize druggie degenerate to preserve the life of peaceful non-druggies.

>Deleuze and Guattari not at rock bottom
Read A Thousand Plateaus and get back to me. Jesus tap dancing christ.

> Being too Western washed to appreciate Eastern and shamanic philosophies.

Terrence and his lesser known brother, Paul, have begun the decisive bridging between Western, Eastern, and shamanic philosophies with postmodern eyes. McKenna is hardly a drug addict.

>Drugs are addictive
Found your faulty premise.

>Yo maan it's just a plant, like, totally not addictive bro. I could stop any time I want maan. Just not today. Or tomorrow.

Kill yourself.

t. Rational, kind, sane and non-drug-addled people everywhere.

Those are generalizations that just can't be facts because exceptions exist.

Your whole argument is a huge non-sequitur.

Refute one of them, then. I'll be waiting.

That is if you can stop hitting the pipe for 5 minutes and form a logical conscious thought for once in your life.

Face it: The drugs are destroying your mind and body and you will never be free from them unless you either turn yourself in to the police or commit suicide.

ooo derrida, weil, and big K all on bots. Nice.

I know tons of people who have quit pot at the drop of a hat because they wanted to be clean for drug tests. It's also nearly impossible to get addicted to other drugs, like LSD, due to increasing tolerance.

Wow that's a sweet anecdote you have there. I personally know, and know of, thousands of stoner degenerates who completely wasted their lives on the drug before letting their addictions get the better of them and resorting to theft, and indeed murder, to sustain them.

Why is it wrong? I can chose between being depressed and killing myself or doing drugs for a good number of years and then killing myself.

>It's also nearly impossible to get addicted to other drugs
>due to increasing tolerance.

Lol ok. I see you're just memeing me. Good one, user.

I hate leftists

I've never seen a thread derailed in so baffling a way

Don't think about it too much. The mind of a druggie is warped and degenerated to a point where our common notions of 'logic' and 'rationality simply no longer apply. Instead urge them to seek help, by turning themselves in, or commit suicide for the good of the community.

>Blanchot the most difficult whereas someone like Whitehead is half way

Agree with the other user here who are calling bait - it's just too obvious.

I take it you've never done any of them. I took pretty good doses of LSD on two consecutive nights. The second time I didn't even get a hint of a high due to tolerance. To trip back to back you have to rapidly increase the dose. Most people just do it once and then wait a few weeks or even months. That's how it works, user. Look it up. Better yet, give it a try.

Since when was LSD the topic here? You're just cherrypicking now.

This is very different. Try sometime like heroin. You just keep upping the dose just to not feel like shit; it's not even about the high anymore.

Don't think about it too much. The mind of a druggie is warped and degenerated to a point where our common notions of 'logic' and 'rationality simply no longer apply. Instead urge them to seek help, by turning themselves in, or commit suicide for the good of the community.

The implication is that the OP dropped a lot of acid and just started frantically throwing random names onto a diagram of an iceberg.

>Refute one of them, then.
This is literally a trivial task. All you have to do is imagine a scenario where somebody tries some drug. After trying it he decides not to try it again. And so he doesn't. And so the addition doesn't set in. Several decades later he dies not having tried the drug for the second time.

There are thousands if not millions people like this. The descriptions of the details of course vary.

Drugs aren't addictive per se. There's no magical, empirically observable property that we call "addictive". Drugs have physical, and only physical, properties. What makes something addictive--that is to suggest that not only drugs can be found in the domain of addictive things--is not the thing itself but how many times you're willing to try it again after your first. At a certain point addiction kicks in. This could be applied to things like "I wonder how it would feel whipping my ass with my left hand" too. You're curious, you try it, and if you like it, you might do it again. Do it several times in a row and you've managed to develop an addiction (= a word synonymous to "habit", with a negative connotation added to it) to whipping your ass with your left hand.

Despite its simplicity, Bishop Berkeley has one of the deepest philosophies, especially if you substitute God for "creative force" or something less theistic.

>After trying it he decides not to try it again. And so he doesn't.

False premise. Drugs are addictive, ergo, try drugs once and you will be addicted.

You can be an addict even if you don't use drugs - it only takes one dose.

For the record, I'm none of the user's prior to the post claiming drugs aren't addictive.

I'm just saying that some drugs can be done in moderation without making one a "degenerate." I wouldn't ever endorse the use of heroin or meth. Those are straight up toxic. Pot, psychedelics, alcohol, and hallucinogens can be safely and responsibly used. Hell, even things like MDMA or coke can be used safely. MDMA much more than coke, obviously. Some just require a stronger resolve not to let it get out of hand. I've done most things at least once or twice (never meth and never heroin) and never had a problem. I've seen plenty of people go off the deep end with coke and amphetamines but just as many kept them relegated to "party" drugs. I've even seen one dude destroy his life because he was unwilling to act like an adult and insisted on just being a pot smoking alcoholic. I've never seen anyone get fucked by psychedelics or hallucinogens except when the law fucks them.

"I refute it thus!"

>False premise
You can't evaluate the truth-value of a statement if you don't know who I am referring to (to whom was I referring to by "he"?).

In any case, since I had no concrete statistics with me, I made an an argument from possibility, even though the scenario that I described is all too common in the real world and that asking for statistics here would be like asking statistics for other commonsensical shit.

>Drugs are addictive, ergo, try drugs once and you will be addicted.
You're begging the question. Your conclusion is just a different paraphrase of your premise. To prove that drugs are addictive you need other kind of premises. Plus, the premise is false: I once tried smoking both cigarettes and pot but never developed an addition to either. There, a single counterexample that's good enough to falsify a universally quantified statement.

>You can be an addict even if you don't use drugs - it only takes one dose.
>You can be smart even if you don't read books - it only takes one book.
Just stop.

>maybe if I call myself rational, people will think I am

>deconstructionists
>deep

holy shit, i didn't except so many replies, virtually all just insulting others without any evidence

shut up idiot your mom has multiple sclerosis

Wait, how many replies did you except? I think they should all be included, personally.

Yeah I agree, Continental philosophers certainly did go off the deep end.

like 5

Tip top of the ice berg
Marx
Plato
Zizek
Derride
Foucault
Marcuse

Deepest depths of the ocean:
Popper
Evola
Aron

>Deepest depths of the ocean:
>Popper
hahahaha
>Evola
hahahahahahahahaha

reminder that no one in the philosophy of science buys falsification even as a general guideline

>There's no magical, empirically observable property that we call "addictive". Drugs have physical, and only physical, properties.
Are you aware that physical addiction is a real thing, along with physical withdrawal?

Benzodiazepine withdrawal can be deadly. Opiate withdrawal will give you crushing depression and severe flu-like symptoms.

Bad pun go rot in reddit

Reminder that the only reason people get butt frustrated at falsification theory is because they applied falsification theory to falsification theory. And the only reason academics dismiss Popper is because he shat on the continental Marxist circlejerk.

>no one in the philosophy of science buys falsification even as a general guideline
How do you think science works?

I am willing to bet that the anti drug people in this thread drink alcohol an addictive psychoactive substance and still think they are drug free.

As a grad student in phil I can say anyone who thinks they know enough about philosophy to make this list needs to do there homework.