Who are the greatest philosophers? Who are your favorite philosophers?

stop projecting

No one is projecting anything. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy in its entirety is wrong as a consequence of the non-existence of god, or of the more reasonable rejection of such in view of evidence, the problem of evil, etc (take your pick), which amounts to the same position. He utterly, and I really do mean /utterly/ fails to mount an effective rebuttal of these and other points.

Plotinus.

I unironically like Schopehnauer.

Thales. He was a phillosopher before it became cool.

Nietszche because he totally BTFO god

...

Spinoza, Seneca and Diogenes

Plato
Boethius
G.E. Moore

Is this a decent philosophy course?

londoninternational.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/birkbeck/ba-diphe-certhe-philosophy

I work in the day and I don't live near London but I still want a formal education in philosophy.

...

This

That's a shame. So sorry for you.

It's universally agreed upon that the greatest philosophers were Aristotle, Plato and Kant. With Aristotle being the greatest of all time.

>Who are your favorite philosophers?

Kant and Plato probably.

Hume

You're good

Reading neomachean ethics right now. Aristotle is pretty pedestrian.

>here lemme emphasize how difficult virtues are to navigate by being vague about similar but morally opposite things like being prodigal, liberal and magnificent."

Aristotle, what's the difference between magnificence and vulgarity?

>I dunno, one is right and the other is wrong

Peter Hitchens on the Fundamentals of Morality.

I primary read modern stuff so I'm a bit recency biased. I like Karl Popper, and for metaethics I like Huemer.

Gilles Deleuze

buddha

>Who are the greatest philosophers?
Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates; Spinoza; Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. Fuck all the 21st century guys, the "modernist" and "postmodernist" faggots.

>Who are your favorite philosophers?
Thales, Heraclitus, Nietzsche. Much more so the latter two, but I do appreciate Thales, since he appears as such a dramatic shift in ancient Greek thought.

Pretty much everyone else feels like they either

A) have a self-righteous stick up their ass
B) never went outside before
C) are petty and are trying to gain something political in nature out of their writing
D) are clearly a very unlikable / incompetent / unreliable human being with a fetishistic sense for aesthetics

Greatest? Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, maybe Hegel but I'm a bit biased here. These I consider the most important.

Favorites? Nietzsche, Hegel is a fun challenge to try to understand at all, Spinoza is somehow delightful

t. newb

>A) have a self-righteous stick up their ass
>B) never went outside before
>C) are petty and are trying to gain something political in nature out of their writing
>D) are clearly a very unlikable / incompetent / unreliable human being with a fetishistic sense for aesthetics

Guess which of these you are.

Well he also said you shouldn't begin studying ethics until you're 50 so he'd underage b& you

Honorable runner up

cute

honestly, I guess he is one of my favorites as well

I mean I can't kinda put him up there with some more uh, established names, but he is incredibly fun to read and has some very clever concepts. I like how he sometimes engages with theology, too

also I think he was what originally got me into reading more freudian/lacanian psychoanalysis, so that was something, and he got me into loving Hitchcock and Ernst Lubitsch, so that, again, was something

-noob

Greatest philosophers? Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche

Favourite philosophers? Montaigne, Marx, Nietzsche, Rorty, Williams

None, since I never claimed to be a philosopher?

Not sure about the greatest. Favorites I can do. In my own canon there's a bunch of guys who have had the heavyweight belt at one point or another.

In the beginning it was the Stoics. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, the Enchiridion and the Meditations. Noble stuff. I couldn't seem to stay on that wagon though. Basically, it was the problem of things in your power/not in your power. What is power, exactly? And why is it so awesome?

So then I read Nietzsche. He was the guy for a while, with Baudrillard. HATH was my favourite Nietzsche book, and Baudrillard's SE&D floored me. Now I had no trouble explaining my issues with the Stoics but some other stuff was bugging me - mainly, the concept of time.

Then I read Heidegger. Being and Time. I didn't go straight in, though: the intro to Heidegger by Zimmermann was extremely helpful. Was a big Heidegger guy for a while. In some ways I still am, although I think his critique of technology is flawed. That was/is a problem, since I figured the world wasn't going to get any more Heideggerian. Rather, it seemed to be going in the other direction (Nick Land, etc.)

So, then, the question of desire. Moved on to Lacan after that, aided by Zizek, especially Less Than Nothing. Thought Lacan had the answers to everything and that objet a was the Vulcan death grip of philosophy.

And maybe it would be so, if it weren't for pic related. For some reason I had skipped Deleuze and moved on to 21C stuff that responds to or is influenced by him (Badiou; OOO; Zizek) without reading the man himself. Now I think I might be staying in this territory for a while. Of course, that's what I've said about everyone else at some point...

Maybe I'm just a shithead front-runner? It's possible, I guess. I think it's hard not to be - like an occupational hazard of talking about reality, you know, that Your Guy has the answers. I sometimes wonder if a person isn't actually better off studying philosophy from a religious perspective sometimes, rather than a non-religious one. I know it sounds crazy, since it might defeat the whole purpose, I suppose...but that's a whole other question, and this is long enough already.

A few others.

-I keep finding myself coming back to the classical Chinese writers and finding more and more that I like there: Confucius, Laozi, Mozi, Chuang Tzu. Laozi especially. Musashi is also quite profound.

-Peter Sloterdijk is for real. The Critique of Cynical Reason and On Anthropotechnics are both good.

-The Decline of the West feels like mountain-climbing, but Spengler's core thesis about culture and civilization is too operatic and awesome not to recommend.

-Borges seems to have this weird magic power where he only gets more interesting the more you read of the other guys. I would say he belongs in the 'secret unlockable boss category' of philosophy.

-Also in the 'not technically a philosopher' category: Napoleon Bonaparte.

Cheers all, thanks to OP for putting up a cool question.

No, but you are self-righteous, petty, and, incompetent.

Don't you have a summer reading assignment to catch up on?

Let me know when you're thirsty, I'll send down some water in a bucket.

>Napoleon Bonaparte

was almost directly responsible for Europe's downfall

he's cool in that high school "fuck the world" kind of way along the same lines of Hitler but he was a horrible politician and an even worse military general

So are you a postmodernist ass-licker or what? Trying to decipher that projection of yours.

Well, I'd like to see you try to conquer Egypt, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland and Spain then

eh descartes is a favourite but I dont think he could be in the greatness metric with those other four.

This is pasta right?

>*tips fedora*

hello plebbit

Birkbeck is a very good university. My dad did a Masters in Law there.

this is the patrician answer.

>Lacan
>Spengler
>Napoleon

lol

Schop