ITT shit-tier philosophers

Sartre
Mill
Descartes

Nietzsche
Stirner
Schopenhauer
The Greeks
Mainlander

greeks beside diogenes
french esp rousseau and descartes and sartre, inluding all psychoanalysts
kant
brits
Shittiest: Rousseau

Deleuze is shittiest

The guy who hung himself is called Mainländer

>Mill
>Descartes
This is b8 right?

>liberals

>conservatives
We'd still have feudalism if it weren't for liberals m8.
Also the US wouldn't exist. The founding fathers were radicals by the standards of their day.

he a pro at lookin at bitches mane

>Septic tank tier
Derrida
Baudrillard
Foucault
Bourdieux

Rothfuss
Sanderson

>lacan
>sartre
>rousseau
>rudolf steiner
and, in any case, pretty much the 90% of the XX century philosophers
>greeks beside diogenes
>heraclitus was shit tier philosopher

>We'd still have feudalism if it weren't for liberals m8.
Have you heard of the free cities and are you aware of how they developed?

jew

all philosophers mentioned itt are at least decent

now there are actual shit philosophers, like stefan molyneux for example

>heraclitus
>heraCLITus
fag

All philosophers here are at least over mediocre-tier
shit-tier philosophers are the one we never talk about, or even notice their existence

I don't get him, he just seems to tread old ground so well trodden it's been worn down to gravel and dirt.

Good linguist at best
Shitposter at worse

I really don't understand the hate for Sartre. The only explanation anyone has given me is that Heidegger is better, which doesn't inherently mean anything.

One eye on the bitches one eye on the inherent meaninglessness of life

Idiots who don't understand his work.

Right, and probably politics playing a role as well. But if Sartre is at worst "just a rehash of Heidegger", and you like Heidegger, then unless Sartre is guilty of blatant plagiarism (which he's not), what's the basis of complaint?

Anyone who isn't Plato, Plotinus, Laozi, or Wang Chongyang

sartre is sjw tier m8

Have you read Sartre? His politics were at odds with his philosophy in many ways, but that just means you should avoid his political writing. Being and Nothingness is solid and comes down hard in favor of concepts like personal responsibility (in a fundamental way).

The complaint isn't that he's a rehash of Heidegger, it's that he misunderstood Heidegger and as a result some of his thinking is based on shaky ground. I believe Heidegger himself is the one who first accused Sartre of this.

Whether misunderstanding Heidegger is a bad thing depends on whether you consider Heidegger authoritative in the first place. Plenty of intellectual ideas are based on misunderstandings. ie, Marx (and many others) built their ideas on a fundamental misunderstanding of Hegel. Not to defend Marx, just saying that if something is wrong it's only wrong on its own terms.

>misunderstanding of Hegel

>CAPITALISM IS BAD LMAO
>FUCK ISRAEL, ISRAEL IS CORRUPT
>COMMUNES WHEN?
>NO, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CAMBODIAN DEMOCIDE ( WHICH NEVER HAPPENED BTW )

All you need to know about Knoam Chomsky.

Chomsky is actually pretty fucking amazingly good at doing the nitty-gritty work of critiquing globalism, ideology, capitalism. He's spent his whole life carefully going at modern history with a scalpel to show what power is and how it works.

And I say this as a person who thinks he's ultimately shitty because he never takes it to a higher level, either morally or theoretically. But hell, even that's not that bad, because he's a relentlessly "UMMM, JUST EVERYDAY PRAXIS" kind of guy, which is useful to have in the culture. I am a theory-inclined person and my buddy agrees with most of my stances but thinks that the navel-gazing French verbal gymnastics shit is 90% posing, and 100% detrimental to praxis. I reply that Chomsky's lack of theory and higher-level conclusions ultimately makes his work fizzle out and lose its effect. But I think we're both partly right.

He has made some mistakes. But he's remarkably intellectually honest and they were over a long career. Also he's old as shit, rude, stuck up his own ass nowadays. But again, he was battered nonstop for years and he basically turned himself into a Metapod Jew made of stone so that it wouldn't discourage him. Look what happened to his friend Finkelstein when the latter got dershed out of academia by the neoliberal Fuck You complex. Finkelstein is borderline insane now. He starts acting out and being sassy, stops giving a fuck. That's a valid route too maybe, but Chomsky clearly chose the "become a dispassionate asshole" one instead.

He's a good scholar, and he's human.

>FUCK AUTHORITY
>"Hold on Undergrad Slave Labourist #7, some weird neuroscientist dared disagree with me, send the Twitter army his way"

>Chomsky is actually pretty fucking amazingly good at doing the nitty-gritty work of critiquing globalism, ideology, capitalism. He's spent his whole life carefully going at modern history with a scalpel to show what power is and how it works.

Also, if you want to talk Cambodian revisionism, the exact same scholars he critiqued for their highfalutin theory were all fucking retard giga-Stalinists as well. Sartre SAW the gulags and went WELL UHHH THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE UM.. YOU SEE.. BEING AND ITSELF.. FOR NOTHINGNESS *PUFFS PIPE* AND THEREFORE, GULAGS A-OK. Just an autistic retard who puts his theorycrafting before regular human existence. THAT is the thing to which Chomsky is a good curative.

Same with Merleau-Ponty, Badiou, how many others. How many of them are remotely sincere about it? MP is insanely autistic and barely knows what a Stalin is, but something something existentialism, therefore, tell the proles to keep supporting Stalin. Badiou is just the epitome of a French cocksucker, gnomically praising mass genocidal psychopaths for the sake of being gnomic, because all he knows how to do anymore is be gnomic.

For all his failings, Chomsky is never gnomic. If he supports a Hitler guy, it's because he was really hoping for socialism that time. Badiou and the rest are just court philosophers who happen to be leftist.

>critiquing globalism, ideology, capitalism
>supports the EU which is the literal embodiment of those 3 things

He was ambivalent about the EU. This is exactly why he is a dick, because he has to just read trillions of idiotic low-effort comments like yours. He has shared his ambivalent feelings about the EU nineteen times but you have some vague idea from a soundbite blurb that he didn't pick up a banner and start screaming for anarcho-syndicalist revolution and the nuclear devastation of Brussels so you say he "supports the EU."

Guy writes piles of books saying "I guess I like apples" and retards 40 years later are still going NOAM CHOMSKY, KNOWN RAPIST OF ORANGE FARMERS

Yeah, but what does Russell Brand's opinion?

...

America is to blame for this Bait.

Now justify his denial of Serbian war crimes.

>Hoping for socialism

How foolish and stupid can a man be to continually strive for an intellectually bankrupt ideology such as socialism?

I hope for the queen of Jordan to suck my dick but I don't believe millions must die in pursuit of it.

zizek is actually god-tier
reported

Everyone before John Green.

Ayn rand & me

Daily reminder that this piece of shit actually pissed on Chateaubriand's grave. Next time I go to Paris, I'll do the same on his. Hell, I might even shit on it. Fucking midget commie pigfuck. Him and his bitch who cucked him with an American.

kek
he actually did it the absolute madman

>TFW I haven't read any of these peoples works.

I'm such a fucking newfag

die

Of course he isn't. He's not aware that the system commonly described as Feudalism hadn't existed for about 200/300 years in Britain or that it was only part of a myriad of systems of governance and social organisation that criss crossed Europe.

It isn't even uncommon to not "believe" feudalism wasn't a "thing" nowadays.

>In Britain by 1750

Fixed.

G E Moore

>problem: external world
>it exists because it looks like it does
>problem: ethics
>everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because they might be wrong
>the solution, then, is that whatever you think is right must be right

Seriously I'm not even sure he's deserving of the label 'philosopher'. Every argument he ever made was a complete refusal to engage with the opposition, instead just saying "durr you're wrong because I think you're wrong"

>kant
>aristotle
>wittgenstein

I'll fuckin' cut you, user.

Let's join epic battle between my dick and your lip, little lover of philosophical shit.

this post is correct but i don't believe it's correct

ill beat your dick against a table with the critique of pure reason nigger. or would you rather i do it with philosophical investigations or on interpretation.

10/10

there's no intelligible anti-Descartes argument, but Mill is just a wordy faggot c'mon.

You mean 'aside'

He was a communist, even though russia was being raped by Stalin at the time

>TFW when you don't actually know shit about philosophy, linguistics, math or psychology, but you go around criticizing an important intellectual figure on the basis of their popular work written for a general audience.

This man is probably one of the greatest living figures in philosophy, psychology, and linguistics.

Formal language theory, category theory, and algebraic topology are probably the three most interesting areas of mathematics today, and Chomsky's work on philosophy of language and linguistics helped pave a lot of ground in FLT. And remember, history has shown us that when the work of a philosopher lays the foundation for a branch of math or science, they're usually the shit (e.g. Aristotle, Descartes, Newton, Saul Kripke, Richard Montague, Condorcet, David Lewis,
Wittgenstein [although he was kind of anti science, and very much into mysticism, but overall he was the shit, and basically initiated work in what would become model theory], just to name a few).

Heidegger

Heidegger
Deleuze
Žižek
Lacan
Kristeva
Derrida
Foucault

etc.

The entire continental tradition besides phenomenology, existentialism, and early structuralism (after Ricoeur and Gadamer structuralism became a joke and deteriorated into a cesspool of pseudo intellectuals who believed that psychoanalysis is a legitimate form of psychologye and were unnecessarily cryptic and obascure in the means of articulating themselves). Basically 99% of post-structuralism, deconstruction, critical theory, modern marxism, psychoanalysis, and the whole slew of microgenres of continental philosophy such as "feminist theory", "critical race theory", etc. are all bullshit.

If you think Chomsky laid "the foundation for a branch of math or science" you're a fucking retard. Maybe next time when you're in your "Mathematics for Liberal Arts Students" class you should tell your professor to google Axel Thue and Gottlob Frege and have him read their Wikipedia pages to the class.

>Formal language theory, category theory, and algebraic topology are probably the three most interesting areas of mathematics today

kek

The Finkelstein case is so interesting. Like knowing about him really reflects on how shitty academia is in that they can't just use facts to enforce their beliefs, so just use power to fuck with people's careers.

Also, watching him actually talk is kind of funny too, because he's the most classic second generation immigrant jew sounding person you can imagine. It's also tragic because he hasn't gotten to be involved in any world changing effort because he totally has been trying to be forever.

rude

>Leibniz
>Spinoza
>Kant
>Sartre
>Rand
>Russell
>Chomsky

Did I win?

all of them

How do you feel about this man, Veeky Forums?

Forgot pic

a talentless hack

my new favorite post

always remember: we are our choices (not the opportunities we make.)

Inspirational stuff by sartre.

zizek and heidegger aren't really shit. zizek criticized today's global capitalism in an excellent way and exposed the ideological behind what people separated from the political.

...

all metaphysicists

my nigga

how is the autism going user

Agreed, Sartre is a fucking retarded tool. Fuck his bullshit.

...

Too bad I literally just graduated with an undergrad degree in math. Philosophers like Chomsky and Bar-Hillel made numerous contributions formal language theory and the theory of automata. One only need open up any introductory book on discrete mathematics or automata theory to figure that out. Also I'm familiar with Axel Thue and his work on so-called "semi-Thue systems". You forgot to mention the work of Emil Post my friend (omg look I can name drop entry the names of prominent logicians too, so awesome, I am). Also I've literally never encountered Frege's name in any math class, although he admittedly did make important contribution to foundations and the development of predicate logic. Try reading a few more popsci books and babies first introduction to analytic philosophy before trying to look like a 1337 mathfag, you're doing a great job.

Also, what's so reprehensible about my opinion on the most interesting areas of math today? I was literally just expressing my own personal opinion, and a lot of people would actually probably agree, or at least see where I'm coming from.

*name drop the names of prominent logicians too

Spinoza, Descartes, Hume, any englishman ever

>lol just everybody XD

I'm tempted to say Nietzsche just to provoke the babes... but he was alright. Overrated to be sure.
Voltaire was pretty shitty.

Voltaire's also not a philosopher

>Voltaire was pretty shitty.

>
>
>

>Undergrad
>Opinion worth listening to.