If all the philosophers who ever lived had a debate, who'd win?

If all the philosophers who ever lived had a debate, who'd win?

Hegel

diogenes

Sam Harris

What are they debating about and who's judging?

Stirner, not even meeming.

Stefan Molyneux

Thales.
Nobody can possibly be prepared for this underdogs argumentation style.

Socrates obviously

the obvious answer here is Berkeley because hes the only one who actually exists but I think Wittgenstein would do pretty well too.

PHILOSOPHY IS NOT ABOUT BEING MORE RIGHT THAN YOUR PREDECESSORS

GODDAMNIT

THIS IS NOT A DICK MEASURING CONTEST

>implying philosophy is about being right at all
>implying its not intellectual will to power
>implying its not a dick measuring contest
stay dreaming last man.

Do they have all the knowledge cumulative up until this point?
Because if so, Plato. The dude was a genius. What he did with the cumulative state of philosophy at that point was something that will never be seen again.

David Hume, the based fat cherub.

except he stole all his ideas from paramenides and pythagoras. Also, how the fuck do you know what the "state of philosophy" was at that point? most-all the works are lost.

Fpbp

>win
Philosophers are all close-minded snobbish fucks.
Did a single philosopher ever come out and say
>You know, I see it now, I was wrong

Hume got outdated by Kant. Everyone knows that.

>stole all of his ideas
good meme
And they aren't exactly 'lost'. We know what the individual philosophers thought. I have nothing against "dude everything is water lmao" since he's not got much to work off of. But comparatively Plato has spawned an entire wing of philosophical thought that has existed until now. I.E. Idealism.

yeah actually A lot of them. Kant, Descartes, Wittgenstein

thats Thales you fucking dilletante scum not Paramanides

Yes, I'm aware, I was just making a point.
Paramanides was slightly more advanced, but still boiled down to "dude atoms lmao".
Plato more or less invented the disciplines of epistemology and metaphysics.

also
>IMPLYING PLATO SPAWNED IDEALISM
get out of here.

>You know, I see it now, I was wrong
>Wittgenstein

Yeah but he just said that to himself

Parmenides was "dude nothing is changing or moving lmao"

He wasn't wrong

>implying he didn't

Was too. Heraclitus was right.

Diogenes would outmeme everyone else.

The others would take it seriously, Diogenes would pull a dildo out of his anus and slap Hume across the face it with, then go on to mimic everyone else's arguments in a baby voice.

u know nothing. go back to school friend. Read anaxagoras, pythagoras or paramanides, or Heraclitus or even the hindus.

>muh induction
Kant was wrong you dingus.

Hume literally said nothing substantial you dingus all he said was

>lmao guys what if like everything is wrong lol emotions amirite??? Miracles stink ~!! xD gods not REAL. enlightenment intensifies

Kant at least was able to sort out hume's autism into a coherent metaphysical system.

>lmao guys what if like everything is wrong
Hume argues that truth exists but that experimental data (statistics) does not lead to truth only probability.

>coherent metaphysical system.
One that is not based on reason just assumptions. Kant is not right, he is more sophist than Socrates.

Phil Anselmo.

Ofcourse its not BASED on reason. his book is called critique of pure reason. He got that from Hume.

It constructs the empiricists' consequence of subjective idealism through reason. Through knowledge a priori and synthetic reasoning.

>synthetic reasoning
Pure ideology.
>a priori knowledge
Misunderstanding an inductive argument does not make it a priori knowledge.

...

Me.

Leave Tommy to me.

Ayy

still better than hume

But who would win in a fight? Plato?

Socrates was a hoplite and probably way more built than half these neckbeard fedora men and sissy romanitc manlets so I'd say socrates

No one.

They'd probably banter about the superiority of their own philosophy, before doing someone pulls out alcohol or something and then they all have some drunk writting contest or someshit.

He also had retard strength and ugly man rage.

W I T T G E N S T E I N

...

Diogenes

Correct.

>Socrates obviously
>there are delicious things in the world
>humans have tongues that are capable of tasting delicious things
>therefore God

>frail cigar smoking, schoolgirl teaching bitchboy
>winning anything
Nietzsche wins against the Western philosophers, Plato destroys every other philosopher from Antiquity.
It ends as a fight between the rival brothers. Both die.

is this bait? You started with the presocratics and stopped?

This, Harris is the only trained martial arts experts among the great philosophers.

me desu

This made me laugh, thanks user lol

lol, Xenophon and Socrates fought in wars as hoplites, Plato was notoiously broad and a good wrestler, they would tear this guy apart

>Xenophon and Socrates fought in wars as hoplites
The phalanx was the laziest formation in history. The real power of the Greeks was the Navy.

>Plato was notoiously broad and a good wrestler
They also had a garbage diet. A large Greek was a manlet compared to Harris.

>implying

Plato would rip his boipussy apart

John Boyd

yeah but who re upholstered plato's boipussy? thats right socrates.

Hint: if the person you posted ITT was born less than fifty years ago, they are utterly irrelevant

Plato was around 5'2", no taller than a Hebrew of the same period. Plato may have been a wrestler but him came from one of the richest families in Greece, his opponents likely let him win to win his family's favor.
Even if Plato was a good wrestler, Sam Harris is a BJJ expert, a fighting style that specializes in grappling techniques. It wouldn't even be a fair fight, Plato would submit within seconds.
Socrates, with his ignoble birth and military experience, would prove to be a far greater match for Sam Harris.

The porch monkey, Stefan Molyneux.

t. Sam Harris - "but also, we do not know what the gods of neurological determination would have in store, for what if during the match, a particular bird of my subconscious delight were to fly past my peripheral and make a sing or squawk, it might be that my unconscious genes would be determined in that moment to look toward the heavens, allowing but for a brief, my opponent to besiege me, also, aren't I something of a manlet myself?"

Kant's attack on Hume was just a bunch of hand-waving and wishing really hard.

Holyshit

this. or jesus

Protip: If your post includes the name of someone who's work you were introduced to by a "Teacher", you are objectively wrong and somewhere between one hundred and one million years behind the bleeding edge.

Translation: Your expensive education isn't worth a fucking thing, because you are not capable of independent critical thinking or research.

kek are you one of the /pol/tards who seen that reddit picture?

I refuse to debate. Debate me on that.

Who'd win?

I have no idea wtf you are talking about.

We both win.

Your opponent automatically wins without saying anything because you've already contradicted yourself.

the existence of a debate presupposes mutual participation. If there is no participation there is no debate and there is no winner for a debate that didn't take place.

Oh never mind, I just presumed so because of how sensitive you are

is this true? Especially the part of the athenian rowers being better than olympic ones we have now?

If it is its based on claims of their feats which are almost certainly bullshit

>ywn be brutally pounded in the ass by socrates while he picks apart presumptions in your arguments

Why live desu

kekked

The debate would evolve into a harmony of dialectic the likes of which the world has never seen, because there is only one truth and all the best philosophers have known this.

Which is a fancy way of saying Hegel will finally give his boipussy up to Plato senpai

>because there is only one truth and all the best philosophers have known this.

t. someone who hasn't even read Plato

Leibniz, because God already pre-arranged it for him to win

He and aristotle would be the two more btfo

keep projecting faggotron

Plato didn't even agree with himself later in his life, considering the Parmenides and the Sophist both are both at odds with themselves and his earlier works

Nietzsche, obviously.

Statistically, some rando that was never published

this
sam harris is amazing at never allowing himself to be wrong in his own detached head.

>daddy issues slut is best girl
Nietzsche you're a fucking fag

This desu

>implying neechee wouldn't rage-quit like a bitch mid-way

Wittgenstein.

He'd bring a poker and stab everyone after telling them to shut up.

Spinoza

This

Berkeley is not a solipsist and therefore your joke is bad

Iamblichus

Imagine diogenes vs zizek

...

>Plato destroys every other philosopher from Antiquity
t. Aristotle

Trump

I like looking at him and listening to his voice and eloquence I don't even care what he's talking about