/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10083024]

ITT: most overrated ''philosophers''

[Anonymous No.10084274]

>>10083024
Peter Singer

[Anonymous No.10084281]

Camus is pretty good actually

[Anonymous No.10084369]

Hegel

[Anonymous No.10084373]

Derek Parfit

[Anonymous No.10084378]

As much as I love him, I'm not sure how he qualifies as a philosopher. He literally comes up with no new ideas.

[Anonymous No.10084385]

>>10084369
>butthurt anglos are so triggered by Hegel they form a philosophical school around it
He's underrated.

[Anonymous No.10084386]

>>10084378
Yeah, I've always thought of him as more like a poet.

[Anonymous No.10084396]

>>10084386
He really was more of an artist. Might be an odd comparison, but he reminds me of Sun Ra ... both poets of the absurdity of life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC_EvSvHzgQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2JR0Jzu8Vg

[Anonymous No.10084407]

>>10083024
All of them. Read Dawkins instead.

[Anonymous No.10084424]

>>10084407
Dawkins is so blinded by his hatred for religion that his logos suffers for it. He comes to the same conclusion as many philosophers, but many years later ; only not reading them because they are religious.

[Anonymous No.10084453]

What?? is underrated

[Anonymous No.10084458]

Heidegger is overrated

[Anonymous No.10084587]

>>10083024
Anselm. The worst hack in history.

[Anonymous No.10084596]

>>10084587
Why? I find him one of the most interesting medieval thinkers.

[Anonymous No.10084778]

>>10084458
This. Universities consider his work as babbling.
I add ortega y gasset

[Anonymous No.10084787]

>>10084274
yup.

[Anonymous No.10084794]

>>10083024
I won't argue his historical significance, but gosh is he inferior to Plato...

[Anonymous No.10084800]

Derrida
Satre
Plato

[Anonymous No.10084808]

Depends on where you're from.

Overrated: Hegel, Marx, Freud, Lacan in academia, Deleuze outside of academia.

Underrated: Baudrillard & Agamben. Nobody knows anything about them over here besides wikipedia-tier memes. Each have only one or two books translated yet their bibliography is full of works that are better.

[Anonymous No.10084812]

Marx, lenin, engels, trotsky

[Anonymous No.10084909]

>>10084274
>Peter Singer
>writes prose
dropped

[Anonymous No.10084925]

>>10084458
being and time was rejected as "insufficient"
his whole project is sort of gay and retarded

[Anonymous No.10084926]

>>10084808
>marx
>overrated
kys

[Anonymous No.10085264]

>>10084281
Myth of sisyphus is one of the worst books I've read in my whole life. That's the only book I've read from Camus thoough.

[Anonymous No.10085269]

GK Chesterton, that's assuming anyone takes him seriously in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10085270]

>>10084808
>Underrated: Baudrillard & Agamben
lmao

[Anonymous No.10085294]

>>10085264
The thing I like about Camus (and Sartre) is their half-baked philosophies work really well when applied to characters in fiction. Their simple yet evocative writing style with their character's psyches in books like "The Fall", "The Stranger", and "Nausea" are interesting, if only just to play with in one's head. I guess you could call it a "fictitious philosophy", one which doesn't contribute seriously to the study itself but does well to add another layer to the fiction these men wrote.

[Anonymous No.10085320]

>>10085294
I don't know why that made me think of Woody Allen.

[Anonymous No.10085368]

>>10084369
Every time someone says this I lose a little more faith in humanity. This guy imagined the most complete philosophical system since Aquinas and is still one of the dominant influences on thinkers today.

[Anonymous No.10085402]

>>10084808
What are you talking about? Not sure about agamben but baudrillard has a large amount of his books translated, but I agree with you, he is super underrated. Everyone should read baudrillard

[Anonymous No.10085517]

>>10085269
My man

[Anonymous No.10086406]

>>10084909
Ok brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10086413]

maybe all of em? :^)
I dunno philosophers does not seem legit to me.

[Anonymous No.10086454]

Literally anyone besides Aristotle and Kant. Schopy is a fave tho.

[Anonymous No.10086456]

>>10084794
You're only saying that because you couldn't make it past the first page of Categories brainlet

[Anonymous No.10086477]

Most overrated philosopher I know of is Schopenhauer. I can go to the local library and pick up pieces of his work, but good luck finding The Phenomenology or The Critique.
Sartre was barely a human being.

[Anonymous No.10086478]

>>10084808
It's hard to frame Hegel as overrated when most people -including important historians like Lorraine Daston- frame dialectics incorrectly. Lacan is another individual who is hardly overrated. So what if litnerds love that mirror stage essay? Most people know very little about how he differs from and develops Freud. (who is, along with Marx, perhaps not overrated, but certainly misapplied/misunderstood by normies and so trivialized.)
Baudrillard's 'moment' is maybe over -but it doesn't follow that he is underrated as a result. Agamban seems to be having kind of a moment.
Overrated: Laruelle, Brassier, Wark, Morton. Walter Benjamin

[Anonymous No.10086509]

>>10084808
>Overrated: Hegel, Marx, Freud
what the fuck

[Anonymous No.10086709]

>>10084458
nice jowls you fat kraut fuck

[Anonymous No.10086720]

Marcus Aurelius

[Anonymous No.10086729]

>>10086478
>Morton
He is not important due to any sort of originality, because he is not original, but the way he presents himself.
I frankly don't get what you mean by 'overrated'. I'm the only one who ever mentions him here. I rarely hear about him from other students, or academics.
If you mean 'overrated', as in he is presented as pop philosophy, that is both incorrect (he is pop-culture philosophy but not in the pop-culture) and irrelevant.
Unless this is a different Morton.

[Anonymous No.10086809]

>>10086720
wrong

[Anonymous No.10086821]

[Anonymous No.10086836]

>>10086821
right

[Anonymous No.10086895]

>>10083024
>It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven
ya OK good luck with that lol

[Anonymous No.10086908]

>>10086821
JSM is hard as hell

[Anonymous No.10086990]

dennet
sam harris
singer
metzinger

[Anonymous No.10086994]

>>10084909
get a load of this dumbass

[Anonymous No.10087098]

>>10086821
reminder this man framed most of his philosophy around justifying his lust for a married woman.

[Anonymous No.10087153]

>>10086729
I do mean Timothy Morton. I often hear people mention him -have never seen him mentioned here- but that may be a consequence of where I've lived/the sorts of academics I interact with.

[Anonymous No.10087443]

>>10086809
I fuckin hate capitalists man!

[Anonymous No.10087493]

>>10087153
A mentioning is meaningless. If you mean overrated, as in made popular by people who have not read him but instead want to force meme ideas through trendy new language, then yes.
Morton is undeniably very important, even if just for helping to provide the grounds for discussions about the rebel golems that torment us so.
Again, nothing original, but is that really a criticism? Dismissing these golems only fuel their rage.

[Anonymous No.10087509]

>>10084587
>t. angry fedora unable to refute logical suppositions

[Anonymous No.10087518]

>>10086821
he's taken as seriously as he ought to be desu

[Anonymous No.10087937]

nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10087945]

>>10083024

Every single philosopher ever mentioned on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.10087961]

>>10084453
Owen Barfield

[Anonymous No.10088869]

>>10086509
All pseuds that did nothing except a bit of subversion, and half-assed at that.

[Anonymous No.10088924]

Sam Harris and the rest of the skeptics community

Wittggenstein

[Anonymous No.10088954]

Nietzsche was a complete hack

[Anonymous No.10089021]

definitely Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.10089050]

>>10086729
>>10087153
I loathe him and made fun of him several times here. I am studying ecology and otherwise self-learned in biology.
He could've been interesting and that's why I hate him - otherwise I would not give him any attention. He writes gibberish and steals ideas from biology.

[Anonymous No.10089105]

>>10086895 (and the rest of [You])
>not posting the real mindless philosopher

[Anonymous No.10089111]

This guy. Constantly pulls arguments out of his ass, and have "feels > reals" as his credo.

[Anonymous No.10090465]

>>10088924
>Wittggenstein
>WittGGenstein
you clearly don't know shit about based Witty. Extracts from Tractatus (you probably hadn't understood by the way) and meme quotes from Investigations are not a sufficient material to dismiss one of the greatest minds in 20th century.

[Anonymous No.10090492]

>>10088924
Sam Harris is not a skeptic.

[Anonymous No.10090501]

>>10084458
Lot of butthurt Anglos in this thread here eh?

[Anonymous No.10090513]

>>10090492
No but he is a faggot from the school of scientism and irrational denial of the scientific method's flaws

[Anonymous No.10090660]

>>10086477
>Sartre was barely a human being
Kek

[Anonymous No.10090747]

>>10088869
wHta the fuck man

[Anonymous No.10090766]

>>10086509
all true

[Anonymous No.10090812]

Woah boy I needed this thread because of how angry these philosophers get me, I need to get this out

Marx, Heidegger (for his postmodernism influence (think Sartre, Derrida), Foucault, Zizek, Deleuze (probably the dumbest of the bunch), Plato, Aquinas (Bunch of mental gymnastics), Kant, Spinoza (yeah I went there), Jesus, Confusious and Buddha (damn life deniers), the Stoics (same reason as last two, Aristotle (kicked a beehive of cancerous though), Hegel (made process but failed to consider the individual), Stirner (too focused on the individual/not enough on the grand picture unless I am misunderstanding him), Nietzsche (too uppity), Wittgenstein (too dry, doesn't say anything profound enough to change society), Hume, Kirkegaard, Analytic philosophy, Structuralists and post-structuralists, Descartes, Marx (Diagnosing the problem is always easy, he never gave a decent alternative), Hobbes, Hume.

[Anonymous No.10090834]

>>10090812
t. Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.10090849]

>>10090812
At least there are some good philosophers that are so underrated you're not even mad at them.

[Anonymous No.10090851]

>>10090812
>Stirner (too focused on the individual/not enough on the grand picture unless I am misunderstanding him)

You can't understand something you've never read.

[Anonymous No.10090888]

>>10090851
Go ahead and refute me. Saying I haven't read him isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.10090889]

>>10090851
>stirner8.jpg

[Anonymous No.10090898]

>>10090888
Your dichotomy of individual/grand scheme would be meaningless to Stirner. That you would even draw such a dichotomy shows you haven't read him

[Anonymous No.10090902]

>>10090812
Anon who DO you like?

[Anonymous No.10090907]

>>10090898
>the individual is meaningless to stirner

Are you serious? The Ego was everything to him

[Anonymous No.10090909]

>>10090902
Gramsci

[Anonymous No.10090929]

>>10090907
>One flattered oneself that one spoke about the “actual, individual” human being when one spoke of the human being; but was this possible so long as one wanted to express this human being through something universal, through an attribute? To designate this human being, shouldn’t one, perhaps, have recourse not to an attribute, but rather to a designation, to a name to take refuge in, where the view, i.e., the unspeakable, is the main thing? Some are reassured by “real, complete individuality,” which is still not free of the relation to the species; others by the “spirit,” which is likewise a determination, not complete indeterminacy. This indeterminacy only seems to be achieved in the unique, because it is given as the specific unique being, because when it is grasped as a concept, i.e., as an expression, it appears as a completely empty and undetermined name, and thus refers to a content outside of or beyond the concept. If one fixes it as a concept — and the opponents do this — one must attempt to give it a definition and will thus inevitably come upon something different from what was meant. It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as “the sole complete individual,” so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense. But can you define yourself; are you a concept?
>It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as “the sole complete individual,” so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense

I maintain that you shouldn't criticize what you haven't read.

[Anonymous No.10090936]

>>10084808

Baudrillard is actually really interesting, I just started getting into him.

[Anonymous No.10090943]

Most over rated: Foucalt
Most under rated: probably also Foucalt.

[Anonymous No.10090961]

>>10090929
I have read him. I didn't really understand it though. The point about him ignoring the rationality of the grand collective of society still holds.

[Anonymous No.10090980]

>>10090961
Reason:
>Through a considerable time we are spared a fight that is so exhausting later — the fight against reason. The fairest part of childhood passes without the necessity of coming to blows with reason. We care nothing at all about it, do not meddle with it, admit no reason. We are not to be persuaded to anything by conviction, and are deaf to good arguments, principles, etc.; on the other hand, coaxing, punishment, etc. are hard for us to resist.

>Mind is the name of the first self-discovery, the first self-discovery, the first undeification of the divine; i. e., of the uncanny, the spooks, the “powers above.” Our fresh feeling of youth, this feeling of self, now defers to nothing; the world is discredited, for we are above it, we are mind.

>As I find myself back of things, and that as mind, so I must later find myself also back of thoughts — to wit, as their creator and owner. In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies — an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e.g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: “I alone am corporeal.” And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself.

Society:
>Who is this person that you call “All”? — It is “society”! — But is it corporeal, then? — We are its body! — You? Why, you are not a body yourselves — you, sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, but you all together are only bodies, not a body. Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the “nation of the politicians, it will turn out to be nothing but a “spirit,” its body only semblance.

[Anonymous No.10090990]

>>10090961
>rationality is good
>muh society is good
Back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.10091011]

>>10085368
>since Aquinas
Hello pseud

[Anonymous No.10091019]

>>10090888
LITERALLY THE WHOLE FINAL CHAPTER IS ABOUT THE WORKINGS OF HIS SOCIETY OF EGOISTS YOU FUCKING PSEUD

[Anonymous No.10091168]

>>10090936
Yep, I was also really surprised. I associated him with a probably vulgar interpretation of Simulacra & Simulation, then became interested only because of his critique of Foucault. Now I've read a bunch of his works but I'm still avoiding S&S. I've read somewhere he disliked it himself.

Which of his books are you reading, or have read?

[Anonymous No.10091182]

>>10090943
my nigga
I roll my eyes whenever I see some article referencing Foucault, but his lectures are GOAT and contradict his academic abusers a lot, especially burgers obviously.

[Anonymous No.10091234]

>>10090812
>Wittgenstein (too dry, doesn't say anything profound enough to change society)
>to change society
>Analytic philosophy
>Jesus
>Kant

gave me a great laugh mate. at least you mentioned Marx twice, made

[Anonymous No.10091274]

>>10084274
>>10084369
>>10084458
>>10084794
>>10089111
aye

>>10084794
>>10086821
DELET THIS

>>10090812
neckbeard autism

[Anonymous No.10091282]

>>10084274
>>10084369
>>10084458
>>10089111
aye

>>10084794
>>10086821
DELET THIS

>>10090812
neckbeard autism

[Anonymous No.10091301]

How come Zizek is only mentioned once? Half of Europe, including politicians, and a large part of young Americans idolize him despite his shit being purely Lacanistic/Marxist regurgitation using new-age terms.

[Anonymous No.10091304]

>>10091301
Also, his tic & how he speaks is weird as shit.

[Anonymous No.10091333]

>>10084281
This. His views were quite nuanced.

Sartre on the other hand.....

[Anonymous No.10091354]

>>10091301
That's an excellent point, and I totally agree, he's merely a public intellectual.
Maybe it's because nobody here considers him an actual philosopher so nobody even thought of him. I certainly didn't.

[Anonymous No.10091356]

>>10085294
Camus is strongest in his essays written during while he fought for the resistance (unlike most Frenchies who were LARPers after the fact)

[Anonymous No.10091417]

>>10091182

The argument that people used his work to make a mess out of academia is sound, but the idea that this is all somehow his fault is pretty absurd.

It would be like blaming Nietchze for Hitler which I get that people totally do.

[Anonymous No.10091424]

>>10091168
Honestly I've just been watching his lectures, I like to do that before I dive into someone's books.

[Anonymous No.10091531]

>>10091424
If you've been watching his lectures at EGS then a good starting point is The Agony of Power which is a posthumous collection of essays.

I don't know if you've seen this one yet but this is from his Fatal Strategies period when his thought abandons critique as impotent and becomes instead a collection of ironic hypotheses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA86hded9ZY

[Anonymous No.10092237]

>>10090812
>Plato
>Aquinas
>Kant
>Spinoza
>Jesus
>Aristotle
>Hume
>Descartes
>Hobbes

Holy fucking shit, leave here forever

[Anonymous No.10092285]

>>10092237
It's just a list of people he's too dumb to understand

[Anonymous No.10092353]

>>10090812
gr8 b8 m8... FUCKOFFYOUMOTHERLESSCOCKSUCKINGFUCKINMOTHERFUCKINGFAGGOTFUCKYOULEAVE

[Anonymous No.10092355]

>>10092285
No, it's just a list that tries to make as many people enraged as possible. It couldn't be a more obvious bait. But it's working. It actually shows which readers of philosophy are most butthurt, that's the only good thing about it.

[Anonymous No.10092357]

>>10090980
How can you deny reason yet are sure yourself exists through reason?

[Anonymous No.10092570]

>>10083024
Ayn Rand.

[Anonymous No.10092609]

>>10092570
eh, not really in the philosophy world
it's like saying sam harris is overrated when nobody in the right mind takes him seriously

[Anonymous No.10092865]

>>10092355
I can see where he's coming from in general though, and I know people that have similar (fuck all philosophers or fuck all philosophers minus one) opinions

[Anonymous No.10092895]

>>10092865
It's very easy to get obsessed with one philosopher, it's actually kinda natural innit? You read their works a lot and internalize their worldview then judge other philosopher based on how they match that worldview.

[Anonymous No.10093019]

>>10086509
>>10084926
they're overrated as fuck, you dumb cunts. even venerated sometimes.

[Anonymous No.10093024]

>>10093019
hegel gets less hate than he deserves desu

I think it's fair to consider him underrated

[Anonymous No.10093540]

>>10091301
But precisely, he's doing a great job of popularizing psychoanalysis and Marxism. Nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.10093816]

>>10086477
>Most overrated philosopher I know of is Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.10094178]

>>10092609
Popular among edgy teeny boppers and those who never grew up.

[Anonymous No.10094608]

>>10093540
theres a lot wrong with that

[Anonymous No.10095857]

>>10090812
>tfw every single philosopher in history is overrated
I mean it true but

[Anonymous No.10095863]

>>10092357
Refer to >>10090929

[Anonymous No.10095907]

[Anonymous No.10095909]

>>10086478
I tried reading Benjamins essays but:
1. I am stupid
2. He writes really awkwardly

His famous essay is great but beyond that it almost feels like I have to read the canon and be an artfag before understanding

[Anonymous No.10096123]

>>10088924
>Wittgenstein is overrated
>Brainlet cuck

[Anonymous No.10096406]

>>10096123
Pardon me, I meant
"
>t. Brainlet cuck
"

[Anonymous No.10097598]

>>10086720

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Meditations. The virtue is extremely stoic, and without a solid grasp of western philosophy most of the ideas will go over a typical reader's head. There's also Marcus Aurelius's stoic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Severus's teachings for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these meditations, to realize that they're not just virtuous- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Meditations truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Marcus's ethical quote, "The impediment to action advances action.." which itself is a cryptic reference to the greek epic "The Odyssey" by Homer. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Marcus Aurelius genius unfolds itself in his personal writings. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Stoic tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

[Anonymous No.10097761]

>>10086720
Marcus Aurelius was not a philosopher in the modern sense, where he did it as a profession, writing treatises and arguing with people, etc. He merely practiced Stoicism.

[Anonymous No.10097797]

>>10085269
I take him seriously, but he's not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.10098273]

Most philosophers are overrated imo. But I would probably say Kant is the worst in this regard.

Just not very interested in history of ideas/philosophy kind of stuff. Outside of course material en texts I only read contemporary analytical stuff

[Anonymous No.10098276]

>>10098273
well Kant was a 4' manlet, which explains a lot

[Anonymous No.10098281]

>>10084274
>>10084787
Name one contemporary philosopher whose ethics have had a greater impact than Singers.

[Anonymous No.10098289]

>>10098281
louis ck

[Anonymous No.10098321]

>>10098281
Alasdair MacIntyre

[Anonymous No.10098404]

>>10098321
A contender, but Singer is more read without a doubt.
MacIntyre might be responsible for a resurgance of virtue ethics, but virtue ethics still remains a very small field compared to utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.10098631]

>>10095909
>I am stupid
You are not most probably. If you realize, you don't understand Benjamin, you're a lot more honest than a lot of people in academia are.
You can't understand Benjamin simply because he's a drivelling idiot. He's contradicting himself constantly while he tries to sound as intellectual as possible. He really doesn't say anything at all. The best interpretation of Benjamin (while it's not an interpretation of him at all) might be Frankfurt's "On Bullshit".