Who is your favorite philosopher?

Who is your favorite philosopher?

Cioran

Why Descartes?

...

...

Nits-she

Elliot Rodger

...

i want a piercing but i'm not decided where. what do you fags suggest?

I suggest you stop thinking like a fucking teenager and drop the idea

I enjoy his method and the way he breaks everything down. It makes him a joy to read compared to other philosophers (although Plato is fun to read, as well). He was very educated and, as an engineering major, I can appreciate his love for mathematics and geometry. I've always found math fascinating since it never really lies, and any error comes from a fault on your part. Most of his natural science bothers me, but that's basically all pre-modern philosophers.

For all of you who are new here:
when they say 'philosopher' they mean: Western 'freethinkers', preferably post-17th century ones, or one of the greeks (but not pre-Socratics!).

Alasdair MacIntyre and Thomas Aquinas respectively.

Aquinas gets BTFO in Micromegas by Voltaire.

you used respectively wrong

...

cringe

cringe

literally who

Possible.
How is it wrong?

respectively has to relate to something

you would use respectively to say "my first and second favourite philosophers are Alasdair MacIntyre and Thomas Aquinas, respectively" (I know this isn't what you were meaning to say)

respectively in this example relates the categories of first and second favourites to the listed order. There are more technical explanations out there I'm sure, but this is essentially how it's used

Kant.

Not a native speaker here but "respectively" always seemed totally useless to me.

>my first and second favourite philosophers are Alasdair MacIntyre and Thomas Aquinas

How is it not self evident that the you list the philosophers in the same order, why would anyone mix it up?

Kan.

Not a native speaker either and I don't agree at all. It's not self evident to me.

Arthur Soapandshower

throws women down stairs and doesn't afraid of anything

for most native speakers and in most situations it would be evident what the speaker means, but that doesn't mean that it's self-evident. diction is important so people know exactly what you mean.

in any case, it may seem useless, but it's literally useless to say "respectively" when there are no categories to pair the list with

why bro you made me sad :(

I don't see any logic in using a different order in the second half of the statement, what would be the reason unless you are speaking and somehow your thoughts get mixed up? But people rarely use respectively in unprepared texts anyway.

My diary desu's author.

Your genitals or your nipples, I'm serious

Buddha

Any fans of Levinas here? I did Totality and Infinity a while ago, starting Otherwise than Being this Christmas.

mitchell heisman

Hegel

It's actually Marx

zizek pls

Heraclitus

no. fuck you. and so on, and so on

Is anyone interested in Gilles Deleuze?

tumblrites

Wittgenstein

How is that?
By the way, has anyone read Michael Hardt's book on GD? Hardt, Brian Massumi, and DeLanda are the only three doing work explicitly on him right now. However, Difference and Repetition is the only modern metaphysics that is active in Continental Philosophy.
The others being Heideggerian Phenomenology, and Lacanian-Hegelianism (Due almost exclusively to Mr. Wipes his nose)

...

been trying to read tractatus lately. anyone into wittgenstein on here? if so, got any tips for comprehending it? is there something i should have read before trying it?

But substantially, there are "professional" theorists making work with his philosophy. Like I said, he is the only modern metaphysician since Heidegger and Lacan with a complete system.

Gabriel Marcel and George Santayana.

when you hate new athiests and sjw's so much you build your whole world view around justifying a god with the premise of lol jung

Based rationalists such as the one in your picture and a few scholastics

His book came out in 1999

Why does Veeky Forums not like him? I find his maps of meaning lectures very interesting. Is it because of the C-16 shit?

...

its like you havent even watched his lectures.

regardless he over exaggerates this collective consciousness stuff to an amazing degree

He's disliked because he's relevant, not for any flaws in his premises or ideas.

Ignore them

Provide some arguments

>He's disliked because he's relevant

literally the same argument as
>they are just jealous
just kys

Veeky Forums likes him well enough.
You're always going to have your contrarians but every time you call their bluff they never respond with an argument for why he's a hack.

...

the theory isn't falsifiable so conveniently enough there can be no argument for or against, the burden of proof is on him and there is no scientific evidence.

They aren't the same argument at all, retard

You're just sick of hearing about him, which is a shit reason for disliking him

i read tractatus and philosophical investigations at the same time. on the internet there are pretty good sources regarding which parts correspond to each other more or less. Even though, i found it quite doable without any other resources.

that said I also had IRL friends with whom i discussed wittgenstein at the time. I couldnt bear that guy on my own though.

He's not stating it as fact, so some people believe it and some don't.

>You fucking Americucks need validation on everything.

>Read a text.
>Carefully.
>Repeat.

What is your favorite piece of shit, user?
Ah, the one that looks the most like you?
Of course.

there might be a magic unicorn in my garden right now too.

If that works for you fine, you won't convince many people of it however!
Also sounds a lot like the argument I made against my parents when I was 12. sad!

>is there something i should have read before trying it?
The introduction of your copy of the Tractatus.

They also beg for a tutorial for even the most insignificant of things

Camus is bae
I can appreciate Kant's goals and his conclusions and his worldview but damn nigga does he write like an autist

If I sound smart and keep mentioning how Jung was so deep and special and no one understands but me then I'm sure I'll get some people. many such cases

neet shit

Dopey user is intimidated by Peterson his intellect, goes to Veeky Forums and starts straw manning. Resentment! many such cases!

Camus is a complete meme, Metaphysical rebel! Cigarette smoking nonchalant existentialism! All French philosophy is style over substance

>metaphysical rebel
If you read any of his philosophy you'd know the importance Camus places on operating within the confines of societal morals

I have and he's pointless. Admit you're a shallow cunt

This guy know what's up

All philosophy pretty much you mean. How has reading it changed your life?

...

fag

kek

Yes he was a fag. Your point?

you are a fag as well

I'm curious who on Veeky Forums knows about T. Mckenna and what they think about him

enough to carry loaded pistols

DUDE

He's between Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson on the LSD casualty scale.

Is Robert Anton Wilson worth reading?

dude the 60's

Say some one who probably never read any of his book.

Just give Society Must be Defended a try and report back. It changed my life.

GOAT

Much more so than the other two.

>tfw I had a Mckenna phase that lasted no more than a week
Fucking Joe Rogan

>reading books by fags

Voltaire was a moron. He BTFO no one but himself in his entire life

I don't even know why I keep replying to you, you're just a kid who just discovered Veeky Forums, and thinks that entire site is lol so randum edgy trolling.

I'm guess I'm bored.

Both Voltaire and Descartes should've been beheaded.

funky ideas

Kant.
>inb4 le ebin God is death XDDD my dude

what's wrong with Descartes? except for all the God did it shit

I'm not familiar with Wilson, and only vaguely with Leary. What do you mean?

It's easy to be alienated by his ideas. I'm particularly interested in his ideas on UFOs and language as a linguistic organism. But I always enjoy listening to him and I think many of his ideas are great.

Haven't found anyone else who can change as many of my ideas as radically.

>No one posts the last philosopher of note

Anything after 1900 has proven shit.