If all the great philsophers of all time sat together at a round-table and discussed philosophy ad infinitum...

If all the great philsophers of all time sat together at a round-table and discussed philosophy ad infinitum, would they solve the problems of humanity?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/EkgJ6kSuGrw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No because there is no solution to mankind, just its existence

It would evolve into a massive homoerotic orgy t b h

No because there would always be that one faggot who will insist he is more meta than others and that they're just deluded in his meta framework.

No.

Yes

Hegel?

yeah hegel

Berkeley wouldn't buy anything and not help because "lmfao it's all an idea anyway." Hume would just start burning shit; that would cause a mess. Descartes would likely have slept in and would miss the meeting. Hegel would be in the corner sucking Kant's dick (this would leave them both occupied for quite some time). Plotinus would be fawning over Plato whilst Plato argues with Aristotle about who understood Socrates better (protip: it isn't either of them). Nietzsche will likely have disemboweled Spinoza and then occupies himself with explaining to Mill the numerous flukes within Mill's philosophy (Mill listens attentively). Kierkegaard would have lept to his death. And then Lock built the West.

>If all the great philsophers of all time sat together at a round-table and discussed philosophy
Oh boy, it would result in a bloodbath.

Btw... Kierkegaard but not Wittgenstein? Really?

This place gets exponentially dumber every time I visit.

>philosophers
>solving anything
lmao

Nietzche would be rude. Everyone would be jealous of how hot Kierkegaard is. The Greeks would be mirin eachothers muscles.

I like this

No, but scientists and mathematicians would

This
Solving problems for the betterment of society or humanity is technology's obligation, not philosophy's.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

youtu.be/EkgJ6kSuGrw

Dude I fucking loved that episode. Having all those smart dudes arguing, paralyzed by disagreements... really, unironically makes you think.

>The Greeks would be mirin eachothers muscles

this desu

stop getting tattoos

>le utility xd

kys stemcucks

>implying humanity's most pressing problems are technological
Fixing the world is pretty fucking simple. We just have to exterminate the bourgeoisie and build world communism.

>discussion solves problems

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

No.

I was expecting Nietzsche to say the strong should fear the weak but nice post.

Where is Rand ?

Better question, where is Krauss?

>Great philosophers
>Rand
Pick one.

They would create problems ad infinitum

Plato and Schopenhauer would kick everyone's asses.

>solve the problems of humanity?

Nietzsche would probably just sit there laughing and stuffing his face with 4lbs of fruit whilst everyone else entertains this ridiculous proposition.

what we call 'philosophy' now is nothing but history of metaphysics, an off-shot of Philosophy (aka science) and bastard brother of Natural philosophy. 'History' - because nobody will care now to waste time building fantasy unfalsifiable constructions in the age of positive knowledge, and 'metaphysics' because it is unable to solve any question it covers, neither ontological, nor gnoseological or ethical because of faulty basis - trying to solve something from within.

everyone would be too shy to speak except for Descartes and Hume

already done

this

And Berkeley too...

>ad infinitum
Too late.

AK-47 has been solving many issues around the world. Especially the meaning of life.

Yes, but the solutions would be inapplicable.

humanity doesn't have problems, people have problems and many of them often contradict each other

Reddit-tier post

1(one) anglo-consequentialist is already one too many

Suck my fucking chode you cheeky cunt.

No, literally none of them would agree with each other, it would be a massive argument, although we might gain some useful insights into their own somewhat unclear ideas, but there would be no great ideational dialectical synthesis.

>round-table
Why?

What method would you propose instead?

They would (mostly) try to but end up killing each other because of their strong convictions

It could be achieved when two philosophers with opposing views would have half of their brains transplanted into the other and vice versa.

That way they would soon come to a good understanding, and produce that moderation, as well as regularity of thinking.

The communication between warring halves of the brain is exactly the sort needed for a group of people to reach consensus.

Small tables for two, the philosophers engage with each other for some time, after that they switch

After everyone has talked in two's, with every philosophers of course, the philosophers make a circle of chairs and clock wise philosopher by philosopher they tell how they feel about each talk

That's my plan so far

They technically did it. Instead of meeting each other they've read each other books, which is the highest possible expression of their thoughts and systems.
Conversation would actually be a inferior form of debate.

All wrong: Nietzsche was actually a nice person, Kierkegaard was a sort hunchback, the Greeks would jack off on Renaissance paintings instead.

What are the benefits of this plan over a round table? How will you correct for the obvious deficiencies inherent in the order of engagement and other factors?

These are both correct

I feel the philosophers would get to know each other better and it allows all to speak
What is your plan with the round table (if that was your idea)?

you have to go back

An imageboard that requires a philosopher pass.

It wasn't. But I see no reason that a round table wouldn't achieve the elements you described (getting to know each other and each getting to speak) under the conditions of this hypothetical meeting of minds (infinite time to go ad nauseam, etc.) to the same degree.

No.

But they never got the chance to reply to the philosophers after them or correct their misunderstandings.

You could say that this is humanity's problem.

>spinoza
>descartes
>hume
>berkley
>kant
>kirkegaard
>great philosophers

>tfw ywn get to hold a q and a with Heraclitus.

Humanity is a spook.

how can you call them great if they didn't already solve those problems in their own lifetime?

How are they meant to discuss when all of them can't speak the same language?

If OP is talking about the specific philosophers in his picture, nothing would be solved because there's too much modern philosophers there.

Define 'great.'

Irrelevant. For any meaningful definition of great, could the assemblage solve the problems of humanity with ad infinitum philosophical discussion?