Philosopher Tier List

[Anonymous No.15640616]

The only good philosopher tier list

[Anonymous No.15640618]

>>15640616
>Rand above anyone else

[Anonymous No.15640619]

>>15640616
How can you value nietzsche so high and despise foucault so much?

[Anonymous No.15640624]

>Baudrillard: A-tier

[Anonymous No.15640643]

>>15640619
yeah that's weird, must be bc he hasn't read either

[Anonymous No.15640644]

>>15640619
Nietzsche saw strength in power. Foucault rejects the west and takes a weak postmodernist view without values.

[Anonymous No.15640649]

>>15640619
could you explain why Nietzsche and Foucault are similar? Pretty sure Nietzsche is traditionalist and Foucault is the opposite.

[Anonymous No.15640655]

>>15640616
this is just stupid, how can you value Nietzsche and Plato at the same time. I know of someone who would hate that.

[Anonymous No.15640658]

>>15640655
who

[Anonymous No.15640675]

>>15640649
>Nietzsche is traditionalist
lool

[Anonymous No.15640680]

>>15640616
Bitch you copied my other thread

[Anonymous No.15640682]

>>15640649
Traditionalism failed, it's a bad term

[Anonymous No.15640687]

>>15640680
Shut up yours sucks

[Anonymous No.15640697]

>>15640687
You put Plato and Nietzsche pretty highly like I did so I get great minds think alike
(Kierkgaard is still shit tho)

[Anonymous No.15640700]

>>15640658
Nietzsche? kek

[Anonymous No.15640701]

>No Hobbes

Yeah thats a yikes

[Anonymous No.15640704]

>>15640697
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.15640719]

>>15640616
>NEETzsche S coupled with Plato
>rand and heidegger for whatever reason twice on the list
have a bump my fellow Xd funni memer
>>15640649
>Nietzsche is traditionalist
you never read nietzsche
It always seems people who unironically subscribe to nietzsche never read him

[Anonymous No.15640723]

>>15640719

[Anonymous No.15640742]

>>15640616
what a joke

[Anonymous No.15640751]

>>15640704
Nietzsche put it best

[Anonymous No.15640765]

[Anonymous No.15641114]

>>15640616
awful, you are a retard and/or a pseud

[Anonymous No.15641128]

>>15640616
Nietzsche belongs no higher than B tier and that is pushing it. No philosopher beloved by reddit belongs in S tier.

[Anonymous No.15641135]

>>15641128
Who is the most anti-reddit philosopher?

[Anonymous No.15641146]

>>15641135
me

[Anonymous No.15641170]

>>15641135
Jesus

[Anonymous No.15641182]

>>15640619
Nietzsche is a real philosopher at least, Foucault is just CIA

[Anonymous No.15641189]

>>15641170
>Jewish communist sand nigger
>Not reddit
Try again.

[Anonymous No.15641215]

>>15641135
Kaczynski but litetally

[Anonymous No.15641226]

>>15641135
Maybe Marcus Aurelius or Judith Butler

[Anonymous No.15641244]

>>15641215
Nah, he's actually one of the most r*ddit.

[Anonymous No.15641286]

>>15641135
hard to say. Probably someone hard-right like Evola.
I think we can all agree that Bertrand Russell is the most Reddit philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15641314]

>>15641244
that image could not gain any traction on leddit. I periodically check their front page and it is nothing but progressive propaganda

[Anonymous No.15641330]

>>15641314
That post is from a leftist sub and is 97% upsneeded. I'll say it again, but r*ddit loves Kaczynski.

[Anonymous No.15641332]

>>15641182
Is Foucault actually connected to the CIA? Do you have a source or have you made some connection? I have been questioning the French Nietzschean movement as of late due to the recent revelation I had that all the beats were working for the CIA.

[Anonymous No.15641343]

>>15641226

this is the right answer

stoicism is very reddit

[Anonymous No.15641349]

>>15640723
To be fair, you can use Nietzsche to justify hedonistic living (which clearly isn't meaningless, uness you don't know what the word "meaning" means). You would just be going against him holding power as the highest value.

[Anonymous No.15641355]

>>15640616
Why did you list Heidegger twice?

[Anonymous No.15641357]

>>15640616
Any philosopher that doesn't promote Catholicism is an instant F to me.

[Anonymous No.15641373]

>>15640742
That isn't Nietzsche in the picture, by the way. That is just a picture of a man with a big mustache posing with Paul Ree and Lou VON Salmoe. That is a picture faked to blackwash his philosophy. All you have to do is compare the ears to realize how fake it is, since Nietzsche actually had quite small ears. Spotting fakes is incredibly easy because of this, at least for Nietzsche. I have counted two other fake Nietzsche pics.

[Anonymous No.15641380]

>>15641373
Is there any story behind the Nietzstache?

[Anonymous No.15641387]

>>15640616
If Peterson's a philosopher, I'm a fuckin philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15641396]

>>15640649
LOL

[Anonymous No.15641407]

>>15641380
Who the fuck cares? How could you respond with something so inane to that exposition? Fuck off, reddit retard.

[Anonymous No.15641422]

>>15641387
But anon, you got your treatise published last week

[Anonymous No.15641426]

>>15640649
Nietzsche was a romanticist (even if he did hate the movement, he has all the aspects of a romanticist), and not a traditionalist. How could you be so retarded to think a man who wanted to BUILD GOD to create the eternal recurrence was a traditionalist. How the fuck are you going to build god with rocks and sticks? How the fuck is anyone retarded enough to be a traditionalist with the massive amount of possibilities that technological advancement gives us?

[Anonymous No.15641430]

>>15641407
>>>/r/eddit is that way, buddy.

[Anonymous No.15641441]

>>15641373
>Perspective? Non-isometric figures? Never heard of them!

[Anonymous No.15641445]

>>15640616
Best introductory for Foucault?

[Anonymous No.15641464]

>>15641441
Yes. I've never heard the word "perspective" before. Fucking retard. And I bet you felt so clever as you posted that too.

[Anonymous No.15641470]

>>15641430
I think you might want to go there to find out what the story behind the "Nietzstache" is.

[Anonymous No.15641471]

>>15641445
Discipline and Punish isn't really hard to read. It always help if you have a little background on him through wikipedia/standford, but if you're not stupid and you read carefully you should be able to grasp what he says.

[Anonymous No.15641574]

>>15641355
Pre-turn Heidegger and late Heidegger? But that would require op actually reading and grasping Heidegger so I doubt it

[Anonymous No.15641704]

>>15640649
For starters, foucault was massively influenced by Nietzsche and read him extensively. His career proceeded from nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15641717]

>Every single one of these belongs in meme tier

[Anonymous No.15641726]

>>15640616
I just want to know how is Ayn Rand is C and F at the same time

[Anonymous No.15641739]

>>15641704
You misspelled Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.15641888]

>Kant next to Marx
No.

[Anonymous No.15641899]

Why is Rand twice on there?

[Anonymous No.15642003]

>John Stuart Mill: A-tier

Absolutely based OP

[Anonymous No.15642120]

>>15640649
Nietzsche wasn't a "traditionalist"
Evola critiques him quite harshly in RoT

[Anonymous No.15643296]

>>15641574
>>15641355
accident lol :)

[Anonymous No.15643329]

is it worth it? only 5 hits for marx

[Anonymous No.15643341]

>>15640616
Imagine believing you can make a philosopher tier list

Heidegger's on there twice you literal muppet

[Anonymous No.15643360]

>>15641330
WTF are you talking about? There's only 36,500 members and its a sub that's against identity politics. Most of reddit loves identity politics

[Anonymous No.15643380]

>Rand is there somehow
>Kant below Hume and Descartes
>Camus next to Marx and Kant
>Cuckrussel next to Chomsky
>Jordan Peterson

kek What the fuck are you doing?

[Anonymous No.15643420]

>>15640616
>Jesus Christ
>S: Plato, Aristotle, Vedas/Upanishads, Laozi, Buddha, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Heidegger
>A: Kierkegaard, Carlyle, Hume, Leibniz, Montaigne, Confucius, Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Augustine, Eriugena, Eckhart, Machiavelli(because he's based), Husserl, some other Chinese or Hindu philosophers
>C: Descartes, Aquinas, Muhammad, Boethius, Plotinus, Nietzsche, Derrida, Parmenides, Wittgenstein, Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau
>D: Deleuze, Mill, Locke, Chomsky, Volatire, Sartre, Russel
>F: Rand, Foucalt, Marx, Stirner, Camus(very simple)

[Anonymous No.15643427]

>>15643420
Wagner is a musician. If I made a list with Kanye you would sperg out.

[Anonymous No.15643449]

>>15643420
>Wagner
Based

Why can't it be 1850?

[Anonymous No.15643461]

>>15643427
It's because Wagner is the only true successor to Schopenhauer while still going beyond his system, and his own philosophical ideas have been highly influential. He's more there for history's sake.

[Anonymous No.15643470]

>>15643449
>Why can't it be 1850?
Because Nietzsche became popular in the 20th century.

[Townsends No.15643530]

>>15643360
Yeah stupidpol doesnt represent reddit at all

[Anonymous No.15643567]

>GOAT david hume
>C
bruh

[Anonymous No.15643582]

>>15640616
>Nietzsche next to Plato
>Plato above Aristotle
>Ayn Rand above Kant
>Marx next to Kant
>Peterson next to Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.15643792]

>>15641286
Bertrand Reddit

[Anonymous No.15643813]

>>15641373
Can you post the other fake pics? Just wondering...

[Anonymous No.15643816]

>>15643296
So which is it, Heinegger

[Anonymous No.15643836]

>>15640616
there's tier above Nietzsche, missing. Jesus/God/I.

[Anonymous No.15643990]

>>15640644
Foucault understood power in a positive and a productive way, he didn’t view it as something that serves as a means of “oppression” or “exclusion”. Just admit that you haven’t read Foucault and stop embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous No.15643995]

>>15640649
Retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.15644026]

>>15640616
S: The-Presoctatics, Aristotle, Schelling, Heidegger
A: Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche
B: Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Benjamin, Agamben, Lyotard, Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer
C: Schopenhauer, Marx, Levinas, Schmitt, Lacan, Badiou, Adorno, Horkheimer
D: Debord, Camus, Habermas, the speculative realists
E: Spengler, Cioran
F: Rand, Popper, Evola, Guenon

[Anonymous No.15644031]

>>15644026
*forgot to replace Camus with Marcuse

[Anonymous No.15644043]

>>15640649
lmao

[Anonymous No.15644047]

>>15640616

NEETzsche is a blue checmark, not even a poet.

[Anonymous No.15644153]

>>15644026
Holy based

[Anonymous No.15644266]

>>15644026
>Gadamer above Schopenhauer
>No Plato at all

[Anonymous No.15644425]

>>15640616
peterson isn't a philosopher

[Anonymous No.15645042]

>>15640616
I like Nietzsche but I wouldnt rate him so high.

[Anonymous No.15645117]

>>15643420
decent list

[Anonymous No.15645289]

>>15641226
Any stoic is reddit is as fuck

[Anonymous No.15645312]

>>15643380
Whats wrong with chomsky and russel being in the same tier? They are both perfectly retarded for eachother.

[Anonymous No.15645358]

>>15644266
Gadamer is obviously superior to Schopenhauer, Heidegger didn’t even consider Schopenhauer a thinker for a reason

I didn’t put Plato because placing him somewhere was too hard

[Anonymous No.15645408]

>>15643420
>Chomsky

????

[Anonymous No.15645421]

>>15645408
The whole list is retarded anyway

[Anonymous No.15645427]

>>15640616
Spengler retroactively BTFOd all these faggots

[Anonymous No.15645437]

>>15640649
/pol/ niggers be like:

[Anonymous No.15645542]

>>15641135
Unironically Nietzsch

[Anonymous No.15645647]

>>15640616
>Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15645648]

>>15645289
they would be much better people if that was true

[Anonymous No.15645680]

>>15645358
>Gadamer is obviously superior to Schopenhauer
Lmao no.

>Heidegger didn’t even consider Schopenhauer a thinker for a reason
I know that he didn't particularly like him or mention him much, but he didn't consider him a thinker? Can I get a sauce for that?

>>15645408
Yes, Chomsky is an important thinker. But I would have moved a few in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.15645708]

>>15640616
kant should be a tier
his philosophy may not have stood the test of time, but his historical influence is undeniable
>>15640655
you can value philosophers without necessarily agreeing with them
>>15643420
this is more accurate

[Anonymous No.15645954]

>>15645680
>Can I get a sauce for that?

Pic related, from “Heraclitus”

[Anonymous No.15645959]

>>15645680
>>15645954
Also

[Anonymous No.15646047]

>>15645954
Jesus Christ Heidegger was seething.

[Anonymous No.15646053]

>>15643420
finna based

[Anonymous No.15646061]

>>15646047
He was right

[Anonymous No.15646082]

>>15645680
>Gadamer is obviously superior to Schopenhauer
>Lmao no.
Have you engaged in any serious study of both, or are you pulling things out of your ass? Schopenhauer is a boring footnote to Kant, beloved by depressed novelists and suffering artistés (and sad boys in their early twenties with pretentions of being both), ignored by most serious philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15646107]

>>15646047
cope cuck simp bluepill cringe. beta onionsboy seethe dilate.

[Anonymous No.15646173]

>>15645954
>>15645959
Lol what a child

[Anonymous No.15646210]

>>15645959
>>15645954
I love this man a little bit more each day that goes by.

[Anonymous No.15646211]

>>15641330
r/stupidpol is based but it isn't well known. The most popular ideological or political subreddits are all 'woke', which means they hate the unabomber.

[Anonymous No.15646313]

>>15640649
foucaults whole historical approach comes from nietzsches idea of genealogy which he set out in genealogy of morals. that method being the debunking of the "truth status" of values by tracing their historical causes. In other words, nitezsche was the first person to use that approach to show everyone that there is no objective morality, and foucault just does the same thing with like 10 other historical phenomena (prisons, mental illness, sexuality, etc).

overall though, nietzsche has a much more expansive and all encompassing approach to philosophy. he has a lot to say about evolutionary biology, most of which freud ripped off, as well as general existential well-being in relation to both our instincts and our constructed values.

foucault's ouvre is not as complete. it mostly consists of the historical debunkings i mentioned earlier, although his later work kind of tries to lay out abstract frameworks that in theory could be applied to numerous things. here i am thinking of his lectures on the will to know, as well as the government of self and others, both of which are lectures from the college de france. he never tries to lay out any kind of large, overarching system the way earlier philosophers like hegel, heidegger, and even nietzsche (in the unfinished "will to power") tried to do. I think foucaults non-attempt to do this is a result of his early death, but also because it wasn't very fashionable at the time. lastly, the thing to know about foucault is that the nietzsche stuff is mixed in with both marxism and structuralism, and so his ideas are more overtly oriented toward societal concerns than nietzsches, not to mention more complicated because of the competing traditions. i think they are both great, but they scratch different itches

[Anonymous No.15646441]

>>15640704
This is used by the alt-right, cringe

[Anonymous No.15646459]

>>15643420
>>15640616
And to think that people say /lit/ is filled with pseuds and midwits. At least pseuds and midwits attempt to appear smart.

[Anonymous No.15646479]

>>15640616
>non-philosophers Rand and JP on bottom
>degen Foucault on bottom
>split Heideggers
>doesn't down-rank Greeks to be edgy
Except for the stray Rand on C, looks based

[Anonymous No.15646495]

>>15643420
>There's no such thing as a perfect tier li-
Teach me, nigger. Make a chart.

[Anonymous No.15646502]

>>15646479
>J.S. Mill F tier
>based
I wonder what deontologician could be behind this post?

[Anonymous No.15646513]

>>15646502
Honestly I didn't know what Mill looked like.

[Anonymous No.15647211]

>>15645954
>>15645959
Yeash, seems the re-animator of the world-spirit, Hegel's continuator, is now the bitter one.

[Anonymous No.15647223]

>>15640616
Nice

[Anonymous No.15647237]

>>15646082
>Have you engaged in any serious study of both, or are you pulling things out of your ass?
Ughh, ugh, you forgot to use a second ">" for the top greentext.

But yes Schopenhauer is superior to Gadamer, simply put just because of his greater creativity. And you may misunderstand what I mean by this, but it is obvious and no different than it is upfront.

[Anonymous No.15648323]

>>15640616
Agree with you on Top Two but I wish you’d quit fucking around with this
Into the trash

[Anonymous No.15648490]

>>15640616
>Rand above anyone
>Acknowledging Peterson

[Anonymous No.15648795]

>>15640644
Lol did you just watch Peterson lectures you absolute fucking idiot?

[Anonymous No.15648811]

>>15645954
>>15645959
Dangerously based.

[Anonymous No.15648924]

>>15640616
Nietzsche and Foucault are the same person

[Anonymous No.15648935]

>>15640649
Foucaults entire thing was going through history and looking for things that we might have done better in the past. Thats pretty traditionalist if you ask me

[Anonymous No.15648968]

>>15640619
>>15648924
Best Foucault works?

[Anonymous No.15649058]

>>15648968
harry potter series

[Anonymous No.15649070]

>>15649058
Too transphobic. What else?

[Anonymous No.15649189]

>>15640619
Because Foucault was a retarded pedo?

[Anonymous No.15650365]

>>15640649
Leave this board, you fucking degenerate.

[Anonymous No.15650413]

>>15640649
lmao fuck of back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.15650425]

>>15646441
Who gives a fuck if the alt-right completely misunderstand Kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.15650427]

>>15640649
amazing bait

[Anonymous No.15650430]

>>15650413
Nah, we're here to stay.

[Anonymous No.15650436]

>>15649070
>>15650365
>>15650413
Why so many degenerates in lit?

[Anonymous No.15650516]

>>15650436
Have you ever read a book? You have to go back

[Anonymous No.15650527]

>>15650436
Your parents wish you were never born
>>15650430
what a shit show

[Anonymous No.15650530]

>>15640619

because Foucault's analysis lends itself to precisely (not so much through his own fault) the kind of prescriptivist power-driven bullshit it aims to be critical of

[Anonymous No.15650552]

Threads like these betray how braindead this subreddit is.

[Anonymous No.15650601]

>>15640616
Daily reminder: anyone who has unironically participated in this thread has actually nothing to do with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15650676]

>>15643420
Heidegger did not like Wagner. He did not view him as a true artist.

[Anonymous No.15650907]

How fucked am I if I find myself agreeing with De Sade?

[Anonymous No.15651014]

>>15641426
What the ever loving fuck are you talking about? He mentions eternal return what, twice? Man between monkey and ubermensch?

As far as building doG goes, sounds like the science doG of Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.15651835]

>>15645954
>>15645959
Based

[Anonymous No.15651873]

nobody has mentioned pic related. I'm disappointed.

[Anonymous No.15653353]

>>15641135
guenon

[Anonymous No.15653855]

>>15640704
....so this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause