who is/was the smartest/best jewish philosopher?

[Anonymous No.10559617]

some candidates:
>maimonides
>spinoza
>husserl
>wittgenstein
>kripke
>adorno
>derrida
>freud
>putnam

[Anonymous No.10559630]

>>10559617
Wittgenstein, its not even close
He was probably the smartest philosopher period

[Anonymous No.10559633]

>>10559617
> derrida
no, he was a retarded conman

but i agree about the others, especially kripke and wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.10559635]

>freud
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.10559643]

JC

[Anonymous No.10559749]

>>10559630
Second after Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.10559791]

>>10559635
More like

>Best
>Jew

[Anonymous No.10559801]

>>10559617
The least-bad Jew was probably Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.10559808]

>>10559617
Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.10559811]

>>10559630
>dude he like knew maths n shit

[Anonymous No.10560201]

>>10559617
>freud
Allers destroyed him

[Anonymous No.10560224]

Their were no jewish philosophers and their never will be. The jew hates wisdom, he decries its existence and tries to tear it down wherever he sees it.

[Anonymous No.10560260]

It's impossible for a Jew to be a philosopher. Take Wittgenstein, the "smartest" of this bunch, he wrote pages and pages obfuscatory bullshit about meaningless grammatical minutiae. Given that Jews can only have a high verbal IQ, this makes him the epitome of all Jewish "philosophy", with Derrida close behind.

[Anonymous No.10560282]

>>10560260
Verbal intelligence is what you need to do good philosophy, doofus.

[Anonymous No.10560304]

>>10560282
No spatial intelligence is actually more important, though verbal is of course helpful

[Anonymous No.10560315]

>>10560260
Idiot, Wittgenstein is probably the least obscure philosopher there ever was, if he's hard to read its because he's too clear and logically consistent for a mind to easily process

[Anonymous No.10560340]

>>10560224
>>10560260

BASED CENTIPEDES

[Anonymous No.10560343]

>>10560304
How?

Spatial intelligence is for physics, engineering, architecture, etc.

[Anonymous No.10560361]

>>10560343
No its not actually, spatial intelligence is actually associated with imagination. The ability to construct and envision various hypothetical and likely states of affairs in ones mind

[Anonymous No.10560380]

>>10560361
Surely clarity of thought and grasp of language is more important than that.

[Anonymous No.10560384]

>>10559630
The most ignorant, for sure. The smartest? He was smart, for sure, but it's easy to crap on the history of philosophy when you don't know it nor understand it.
>>10559617
Kripke, Maimonides and Spinoza are the only ones that I could catalog as jewish philosophers, in the sense that they are really into orthodox jewish subjects.

[Anonymous No.10560393]

>>10560380
I disagree, many of the most important philosophers in history did not have particularly clear and concise language.
Leave clarity to the secondary material writers, actual ideas are what makes a thinker

[Anonymous No.10560401]

>>10560393
t. low verbal iq

[Anonymous No.10560429]

>>10560393
That has more to do with the newness or difficulty of their ideas, or sometimes just rushing.

Also, verbal intelligence is linked to abstract reasoning and problem solving.

[Anonymous No.10560436]

this guy

[Anonymous No.10560445]

>>10560429
Philosophy by its very nature resists both language and problem solving in an ordinary sense however.
I think in a certain sense you have to despise language to be a philosopher

[Anonymous No.10560453]

>>10559617

AND WHAT OF ARENDT?

[Anonymous No.10560456]

>>10560445
That sounds like a Continental assertion. "Reality is ungraspable/ineffable/unspeakable etc."

But if you can't explain what you're talking about, then you have not explained anything at all.

[Anonymous No.10560463]

>>10559808
/thread

[Anonymous No.10560470]

>>10560456
>That sounds like a Continental assertion

But of course, and a true one. Who says philosophy has to explain anything, from the very beginning with Socrates all he did was expose the fundamental ignorance in what we take for reality

[Anonymous No.10560473]

>>10560380
>Surely
lol

[Anonymous No.10560553]

So... Nobody here studied philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10560556]

>>10560553
I have a degree in philsophy actually

[Anonymous No.10560566]

Aristotle was Jewish

[Anonymous No.10560568]

>>10560556
And you are the
>That sounds like a continental assertion
or the
>Philosophy by its very nature resists both language and problem solving
?

[Anonymous No.10560594]

>>10560260
>jews can only have high verbal intelligence

[Anonymous No.10560603]

>>10560568
Take a guess

[Anonymous No.10560606]

>>10560603
Both sounds like they haven't studied philosophy. But because of the arrogance, I guess the "continental assertion" guy.

[Anonymous No.10560676]

>>10560553
People who are serious about philosophy don't waste their time with smartest/best threads.

[Anonymous No.10560685]

>>10559630
>Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Wow, so profound.

[Anonymous No.10560716]

>>10560685
Really is though. Its beautifully poetic too

[Anonymous No.10560739]

>>10560716
Please, tell us what you think it actually means.

[Anonymous No.10560743]

>>10560716
>tautologies are profound

[Anonymous No.10560757]

Jesus, John, Paul

[Anonymous No.10560761]

>>10560739
Whereof one can not speak, one must pass over in silence.

[Anonymous No.10560782]

>>10560743
I mean, strictly speaking, tautologies are neither profound nor devoid of meaning, they just are. That's the definition of a tautology.

[Anonymous No.10560820]

>>10560782
>That's the definition of a tautology.
You know you can google something before you post it, right?

[Anonymous No.10560829]

>>10560820
Not him but you might want to do some googling yourself

[Anonymous No.10560844]

>>10560761
That's just some translation, anon.

[Anonymous No.10560857]

>>10560829
>they just are.
No, thanks. I have done my readings.

[Anonymous No.10560867]

>>10560857
Are you going to explain your reasoning then or are you just going to hide behind an imaginary proof

[Anonymous No.10560881]

>>10560867
Just hide. I like to watch down from my tower. And I don't work for free.

[Anonymous No.10560889]

>>10560761
Are you going to explain your interpretation or are you just going to hide behind a mysterious aphorism?

[Anonymous No.10560898]

>>10560881
t. pseud

[Anonymous No.10560904]

>>10560889
Isn't the aphorism more or less saying he has no choice but to do the latter?

[Anonymous No.10560905]

>>10560889
Its not exactly mysterious. Its Wittgenstein, after delineating the limits of language throughout the tractatus, that any attempt to analytically clarify what is ineffably beyond language is an illegitimate project.
The beauty in it to me however is its preservation of the legitimacy of the ineffable itself.

[Anonymous No.10560914]

>>10560905
>that any attempt to analytically clarify what is ineffably beyond language is an illegitimate project.

Which is simply his opinion, and poetry literally proves him wrong by definition.

[Anonymous No.10560932]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRI_ZSh6iF4

speaking of Wittgenstein. Has anyone watched this documentary? Is it click-baity, or is there a real connection between these two figures. Also if anyone could identify the piece at 14:54 it would be much appreciated.

[Anonymous No.10560943]

>>10560914
I think "futile" would be a better word for it.

[Anonymous No.10560948]

>>10560914
Except poetry is explicitly non-analytical!
Christ almighty, that's the entire point of poetry, the moment you reduce it to its propositional content is the moment it dies. That's the whole point Wittgenstein was making, there are experiences outside what language can logically convey yet though we can not truly speak of them they are very much part of our experience

[Anonymous No.10560949]

>>10560829
>Googling yourself

Nah, I'm on no fap atm.

[Anonymous No.10560958]

>>10560914
>Which is simply his opinion

Only if you can find fault with the rest of the Tractatus dingus. There's a reason this was the last line of the book

[Anonymous No.10560965]

>>10560904
not really

[Anonymous No.10560966]

>>10560948
>Christ almighty, that's the entire point of poetry, the moment you reduce it to its propositional content is the moment it dies.

lmao this is absolutely the kind of brainlet fraudulence I heard for 10 years in my phil department.

A poem like "Dulce et decorum est" literally is about its propositional content you doofus, and it dies without it.

[Anonymous No.10560968]

Adorno.

He ruined Heidegger.

Wittgenstein is a gimmick.

[Anonymous No.10560978]

>>10560966
>Dulce et decorum est

Dude war is bad

[Anonymous No.10560989]

>>10560978
And your point is?

[Anonymous No.10560990]

>>10560978
Stellar argument.

[Anonymous No.10560994]

>>10560989
That if something could be written any other way then it wouldn't need to be a poem

[Anonymous No.10561001]

>>10560994
lrn2writt
lrn2thnk

[Anonymous No.10561002]

>>10560994
You're absolutely retarded and answers like this is why analytics get the charge of autism.

The point is *how* war is bad, and the images that a poet produces to that effect.

But yes, of course, when you're an autist like yourself and can't appreciate beauty, I can see that it's simply easier to say "War is bad".

[Anonymous No.10561006]

no competition

[Anonymous No.10561018]

>>10561002
You seem to have brought in some baggage that is giving you some idea of what it is you're meant to be arguing against but you're entirely missing what I'm actually saying.
I'm saying precisely that poetry is needed because we can't get certain ideas and experiences across simply through analytic discourse. That you can write as many essays as you want detailing why war is bad like Chomsky but nobody may give a shit.
Yet it takes simply one poem because of the strange immanence of how it connects to us beyond the simple logic of language that can really change a heart deeply.

[Anonymous No.10561019]

>>10560948
> propositional content
Is this a metaphysics thread now?

[Anonymous No.10561031]

>>10559630
This
/thread

[Anonymous No.10561042]

>>10561018
Your post sounds oddly religious. And poems don't connect to us, we connect to them.

[Anonymous No.10561047]

>>10561042
>Your post sounds oddly religious
Wittgenstein was oddly religious

[Anonymous No.10561050]

>>10561047
Are you Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.10561059]

>>10561018
Yeah but when you post shit like this>>10560978 you're giving the impression that everything you need is the kind of shit that Chomsky writes, which is wrong.

[Anonymous No.10561077]

>>10561059
I made that shitpost to show how reducing poetry to its logical content kills the point of it. That you can do that to any piece of art which shows the limits of language more than art.

[Anonymous No.10561083]

>>10559617
Ben Shapiro

[Anonymous No.10561101]

>>10561077
But it doesn't kill the entire point of it, because it's literally the premise of the poem.

Propositional content and aesthetics aren't completely separate. This is the reason why shit like Finnegan's Wake is almost impossible to read, primarily because it lacks so much of the former and tries to make language completely borderless and unconstrained.

[Anonymous No.10561139]

>>10561101
Naturally but that is not relevant to what I've been saying. Which is merely that propositional content *alone* isn't enough to capture experience. Which is actually a radical divergence from the analytic tradition Wittgenstein was writing against.

[Anonymous No.10561142]

>>10561101
good post

[Anonymous No.10561147]

>>10559617
Spinoza.

>>10560260
>Jews can only have a high verbal IQ
Not when racially mixed.

[Anonymous No.10561178]

>>10561101
>Propositional content and aesthetics aren't completely separate.
Trying to match something that in nature is non intentional with something that is purely intentional is not going to lead you far.

[Anonymous No.10561188]

>>10561178
Why?

[Anonymous No.10561204]

>>10561178
It depends on what you mean.

I mean sometimes it's more forceful and meaningful to literally say "I love you" to your wife, and another day it might be more forceful and meaningful to invite her to a candlelit dinner ready with a bottle of wine, but these two things are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.10561206]

>>10561139
>propositional content *alone* isn't enough to capture experience
which relates to the second part of the aphorism, about actively silencing the unutterable

[Anonymous No.10561208]

>>10561188
You are going to turn one of them into the other. Thinking that you need to have a "propositional content" to convey a message is killing the point of aesthetics. Is bringing "right or wrong" to something that doesn't have any epistemic value.

[Anonymous No.10561220]

>>10561208
>Thinking that you need to have a "propositional content" to convey a message is killing the point of aesthetics.

>This he says while literally the opening line of The Stranger is "Mother died today".

[Anonymous No.10561230]

>>10561206
Which is in relation to "speech" as in semantically reducible discourse. Not all possible expression

[Anonymous No.10561235]

>>10561220
wew lad, great example and great argumentation.

[Anonymous No.10561240]

>>10561147
>Spinoza

The guy is a hack. His argument against free will is that if you were a rock with consciousness falling down a hill you'd believe you were falling of your own volition.

[Anonymous No.10561253]

>>10561240
Well it's a pretty good argument though given that nobody can actually know whether rocks actually have consciousness or not.

[Anonymous No.10561254]

>>10561235
> great argumentation.
>B does not necessitate A
>"Yeah but here's an example of A & B"

No it isn't you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.10561256]

>>10561240
>What is conatus?
If you do something is because you were made for that. I like him.

[Anonymous No.10561261]

>>10561208
I'm not sure I understand you. Do you think of propositional content as being intentional?

[Anonymous No.10561264]

>>10561254
I would fail you so bad.

[Anonymous No.10561271]

>>10561264
And I'd wipe my ass with whatever qualification relies on you

[Anonymous No.10561281]

>>10561271
I know. That's why you don't understand.
>>10561261
And that made it. Goodnight gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.10561289]

>>10561261
It is by definition, since a proposition must have a truth value.

[Anonymous No.10561319]

>>10561289
That's what I figured but I.m not so sure because it seems that, in aesthetic experience, non-intentional messages are conveyed as well. Maybe I'm not using the word message correctly.

[Anonymous No.10561336]

>>10561253
>>10561256

the problem I have with the argument is that if you drop someone out of a plane they are obviously going to feel as though they are falling against their will. So why not the hypotetical rock for that matter?

[Anonymous No.10561361]

>>10561319
>Maybe I'm not using the word message correctly.

You aren't but its quite excusable. The poster was using Husserl's phenomenalogical use of the term

[Anonymous No.10562971]

Marx

[Anonymous No.10563042]

>>10560757
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYlfwg-2C18

[Anonymous No.10563045]

>>10563042
this is embarssing

[Anonymous No.10563063]

>>10560260
You realize Wittgenstein was like 1/8 ethnically Jewish and a catholic, right ?

[Anonymous No.10563100]

>>10563063
He was 3/4 ethnically Jewish and despite being baptized and buried catholic had no allegiance to the Vatican. He was some strange kind of Christian though, and was heavily influenced by Tolstoy, William James, and Kierkeggard in in that way. He struggled with not having sufficient faith despite believing it was best to have that faith.

[Anonymous No.10563520]

>>10559617
Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.10563525]

>Spinoza
NO LMAO

[Anonymous No.10563527]

>>10560456
>continental
Oh look, a teenager.
kys please

[Anonymous No.10563532]

>>10560966
>department
You're still in high school.

[Anonymous No.10563536]

>>10563100
What can you recommend to read about Wittgenstein's faith?

[Anonymous No.10564103]

>>10560384
> but it's easy to crap on the history of philosophy when you don't know it nor understand it.
Holy shit, I know this is bait, but kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.10564133]

>>10563536
The gospel in brief

[Anonymous No.10564470]

>>10561240
>The guy is a hack.
No, it was just a different time and thus a different use of language. Also, you make it sound stupider when you leave out the full passage.

>Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.

Spinoza is much more complex than just this passage, too. His most valuable contribution was his concepts of nature and substance, which even Nietzsche admired and regarded as a precursor to his own concepts.

[Anonymous No.10564479]

the one that wrote Ecclesiastes

[Anonymous No.10564482]

>>10560966
> hur durr poems can provide substantial analytical knowledge about the world
jesus christ, kill yourself and take the dead corpse of philosophy with you, you absolute pseud trash

[Anonymous No.10564490]

>>10560453
Arendt persistently refused the title of philosopher herself, dumbo.

[Anonymous No.10564493]

>>10564470
That's an awful argument. Spinoza and spinozists belong in a grave.

[Anonymous No.10564499]

>>10564490
Internalized misogyny :^)

[Anonymous No.10564504]

>>10564493
>That's an awful argument.
If you think so, then explain how.

As I see it, >>10561336 makes the mistake of ignoring that the rock and the human do not have the same functional capacities, therefore it should not be assumed that they should both come to the same conclusions. The whole point of Spinoza's argument is that the rock is conscious of everything it has the capacity to do — which is not moving arms and legs freely like a human, but rolling, falling, tumbling, etc. — and because it is currently falling, which is within its capacity to do, it assumes it has free will. Humans, in the same sense, when they do things which are within their capacity to do, will also assume that they have free will. But the fact that we have limited functional capacities at all and we behave entirely per those designs brings the notion of free will into question.

[Anonymous No.10564525]

>>10564504
>its le clever so its le valid
Liberals, everybody. Sorry, I'm not impressed by hand-wavery.
>This is what free-will is! I am so clever!
>This rock does not have what i define as free will! Aren't I clever?
>Neither do humans! Why am I so clever?
a = a mate. That's all that's going on here. You're only impressed because you are a pseudoautodidact. You aren't even capable of evaluating an argument, you take coherence at face value. You lack the education to do otherwise.

Thing's whose post number is '10564504' are gay.
This rock has 10564504 inscribed in its side, and even in the chance that it is grated or cleaved off, the rock knows this number by memory.
Similarly, 10564504 is engraved in your post, which will be stored for many years if not forever in some way.
Therefore, you are gay.

[Anonymous No.10564598]

>>10564525
>its le clever so its le valid
That's not at all what I said though.

If you're interested in having a civil conversation, by all means. I'm open to different views that are more compelling than my own, that's why I read philosophy. Otherwise, take your spastic shit-flinging nonsense elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.10564605]

>>10559617
>all retarded hacks
really made me think

[Anonymous No.10564624]

>>10564504
>that the rock and the human do not have the same functional capacities, therefore it should not be assumed that they should both come to the same conclusions

Imagine writing this shit and thinking you're engaging in serious thought

[Anonymous No.10564631]

>>10564504
>The whole point of Spinoza's argument is that the rock is conscious of everything it has the capacity to do — which is not moving arms and legs freely like a human, but rolling, falling, tumbling, etc.

Except rocks left on their own do not do any of that. Rocks as a rule do absolutely nothing infact

[Anonymous No.10564643]

>>10564504
god I hope this is a bait post

[Anonymous No.10564673]

>>10564624
>>10564643
You fucking idiots seem to think I agree with Spinoza's theoretical 100%. I don't. I'm just trying to explain what the argument really entailed, since no one else in the thread seemed capable of even trying.

>>10564631
Right. It's a theoretical. The real point of which is that at the scale of the universe, there is no free will.

[Anonymous No.10564683]

>>10564673
Your post is ridiculous, you don't understand what you want to explain.

[Anonymous No.10564690]

>>10564683
I understand myself completely. Tell me what isn't clear and I'll explain it further. Just saying "ur wrong" isn't productive.

[Anonymous No.10564763]

>>10564690
Where does consciousness originate to Spinoza?

[Anonymous No.10564808]

>>10559617
In terms of sheer enjoyment, Bergson.

[Anonymous No.10564858]

>>10564763
>>10564763
For Spinoza,
>If the imagination of man were the sole cause of his ideas, then it would be impossible that he should be able to apprehend anything, but he can apprehend something.

In other words, he does not share Descartes's mind-body dualism. Mind (consciousness) is not separate from body; it is not self-sustaining, it is reliant on what is external to it. Mind arises from mind as an idea contrasted against the body, like how a mountain arises out of knowledge of valleys. Or, you could say, consciousness originates from analysis; it's an interpretation; the complexity of the external having a direct influence on its formation.

[Anonymous No.10565081]

Maimomides is the clear answer. You wouldn't have aesthetic criticism or negative thought without him.

Also, doctors are once again using his path in med school.

[Anonymous No.10565234]

>>10564598
>civil
le classy sir
You read philosophy to tip your ledora. Fuck off, handwavey autodidact.

[Anonymous No.10565239]

>>10565234
Why do you read philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10565248]

>>10565239
Not him but I like finding fancy excuses to justify my despicable life choices

[Anonymous No.10565728]

>>10565234
>le classy sir
There's nothing particularly "classy" about having a discussion about a philosopher's work. That's the default mode of approach for anyone actually interested in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10566278]

>>10565239
Because I can?
>>10565728
What you ask for is not a discussion,but rather a fedora tipping contest.

[Anonymous No.10566483]

>>10565248
>fancy excuses to justify my despicable life choices
realest post i've ever seen

[Anonymous No.10566556]

>>10559617
Spinoza all the way through. His views did not only covered metaphysical shit, but also wrote nicely and straightfowardly on ethics, politics, etc. Obviously I say so considering the contextual and historicam scenario in which his thoughts evolved.

Derrida made very interesting points but his style was awful and actually simplistic; adorno's thoughts were from a whole school of thought so I would admire the grouo rather than the person

[Anonymous No.10566573]

>>10559617
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Nunes

[Anonymous No.10566950]

>>10566556
But Spinoza is awful. You just fancy him because you're a liberal.

[Anonymous No.10566991]

>>10566950
bait harder

[Anonymous No.10566998]

>>10566991
>hurr durr reason and stateslavery is good i used reason and the state told me to do this so its true jews rule the world

[Anonymous No.10567025]

>>10566998
They do though

[Anonymous No.10567046]

>>10560782
>tautologies are not devoid of meaning

[Anonymous No.10568784]

>>10560932
Schoenberg - String Trio Op.45