/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17211015]

Post a worse philosopher

[Anonymous No.17211049]

Karl Popper
John Rawls

[Anonymous No.17211065]

>>17211049
fpbp

[Anonymous No.17211066]

Rousseau

[Anonymous No.17211077]

>>17211015
Rousseau

[Anonymous No.17211083]

>>17211066
>>17211066
Also good

[Anonymous No.17211087]

>>17211015
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17211088]

>>17211015
Epicurus

[Anonymous No.17211103]

>>17211015
me desu

[Anonymous No.17211109]

Peter Singer

[Anonymous No.17211110]

>>17211087
>>17211088
>consecutive post numbers
you cringelords belong together (on r_ddit)

[Anonymous No.17211113]

>>17211015
All of them except Kant

[Anonymous No.17211127]

>>17211015
I think Rousseau is, objectively, one of the worst ones.
I'd also go for Camus

[Anonymous No.17211128]

>>17211110
cry more life affirmer

[Anonymous No.17211135]

>>17211015
Cornell West
Rousseau
Peter Singer

[Anonymous No.17211138]

>>17211015
Blaise Pascal

[Anonymous No.17211150]

>>17211113
This is a good bit.

[Anonymous No.17211157]

my diary desu

[Anonymous No.17211159]

>>17211015
Rousseau
Sartre
Marx

[Anonymous No.17211173]

>all these people that only skimmed through the wiki page of Rousseau
cringe desu

[Anonymous No.17211183]

>>17211015
>worse
read: I got filtered and/or am coping with the fact that Hume (pbuh) cannot be refuted

[Anonymous No.17211367]

>>17211183
Read Kant you fucking retard. There are certain things which necessarily have to be caused because of logical categories, like for example a wheel on a car spinning clockwise, but the car moving in the counter clockwise direction. This is because we understand reality through a priori laws, and though we can't prove causality of the thing in itself, we can for what we understand.

[Anonymous No.17211384]

>>17211367
Also, I'm not a Kantian this is just the easiest way to explain it without having to do the Hegel meme.

[Anonymous No.17211410]

>>17211367

Read Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.17211416]

>>17211015
You can't, David "Coom" Hume is literally the worst philosopher imaginable

[Anonymous No.17211524]

>>17211367
This is not at all a refutation of Hume you retard; he doesn't argue that causality doesn't exist, just that it cannot be justified with reason and is understood through custom--where reason fails, human nature takes over. Human nature is fundamental to human understanding, it is all that cannot truly be defended by reason but is still undeniable to the human brain.
Actually read him you moron

[Anonymous No.17211612]

>>17211049
>John Rawls

[Anonymous No.17211618]

>>17211066
>>17211077
Rousseau fucks, why do you hate him?

[Anonymous No.17211633]

Why do ye dislike Hume and Rousseau?

[Anonymous No.17211634]

>>17211015
every single philosopher is crap
philosophy is weaponized retardation meant to mesmerize simpletons
repent

[Anonymous No.17211638]

>>17211066
The cool thing about Rousseau is I think that he realized how bad he was at philosophy and life. This is his philosophy. That all men are fickle and paradoxical in nature.

[Anonymous No.17211707]

>>17211524
yes to but to have the experience which generates empirical propositions, it is necessary to have certain conditions, like a law of causality, that certain things follow others. Hume implicitly accepts this a priori condition while denying a priori knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17211720]

>>17211638
you realize how much Rousseau influenced Kant, Hegel, and later political thinkers?

[Anonymous No.17211726]

>>17211049
based

[Anonymous No.17211741]

>>17211367
>muh logic

[Anonymous No.17211825]

>>17211707
He literally accepts causality as a primary means of reasoning though... He just says it cannot be proved with reason itself, as it relies on custom, which makes it impossible to reason with complete assurance that one thing will cause the next.
I don't know why you'd turn to Kant to show Hume is terrible, Hume was one of Kant's biggest influences and and inspirations for becoming a philosopher. Also there are a lot of other things they disagreed on you could cite, but it seems like you read the wikipedia page for Hume and skimmed the part on causation.

[Anonymous No.17211878]

>>17211128
Go die life denier

[Anonymous No.17211895]

hume haters are such dweebs lmao

[Anonymous No.17211897]

>>17211367
>Read Kant you fucking retard.
Why waste your time reading a skeptic to deal with a skeptic? Just go read Aristotle and never deal with the enlightenment retarded philosophical """innovations""".

[Anonymous No.17211995]

>>17211015
This faggot

[Anonymous No.17212046]

>>17211015
Is it even possible to post a worse philosopher than this?

[Anonymous No.17212097]

>>17211720
So?

[Anonymous No.17212105]

>everyone who is saying hume is bad clearly hasn't read him
you're all dilettantes with ideology's cock down your throat. No interest in the pursuit of knowledge, you treat philosophers like they're your marvel superheroes
Fuck you faggots.

[Anonymous No.17212147]

Katy Price

[Anonymous No.17212172]

Hume was not nearly as bad as I thought he would be. He was just trolling everybody and accidentally triggered Kant's autism, so he was the cause (ha) for the 3 criqitues.

[Anonymous No.17212194]

If you hate Hume then you definitely haven’t read Hume at all. Also, there’s no such thing as a “better philosopher.” Go read more you dense faggot and stop acting like you’re so smart just because you know a philosopher besides Camus you retard faggot.

[Anonymous No.17212325]

so glad this thread is full of humechads dabbing on retards

[Anonymous No.17212587]

>>17211825
yes, but the repeated relations which provide the basis for custom require the transcendental condition of causality, otherwise events could happen in either direction, and thus custom would be subverted. Kant was influenced by Hume, and transcendental idealism resembles Hume's empiricism in it's application to the sensory world, but Kant famously refutes Hume with his transcendental argument resulting causality. I've read both an Enquiry concerning human understanding and the Critique of Pure Reason.

[Anonymous No.17212603]

>>17211015
Kierkegaard. Total bullshit, worst existentialist unless if you're a coping christcuck. I assume you are a christcuck because you're posting the guy who btfos miracles.

[Anonymous No.17212609]

>>17212325
while they were dabbed on, and humechads were there, the causality cannot be proven

[Anonymous No.17212853]

>>17212587
>yes, but the repeated relations which provide the basis for custom require the transcendental condition of causality, otherwise events could happen in either direction, and thus custom would be subverted
Again he never says causation isn't real, just that in the faculties of reason it does not follow that there is a necessary conne(x)ion between any two objects that can prove causation beyond custom and an innate understanding provided by human nature. Custom can be subverted, it doesn't mean it will be or it is likely to be, but there is nothing in pure reason that necessitates it cannot be. However, Hume says that philosophical enquiries should always be pursued with a combination of pure reason and human experience, therefore causation is a valid mode of reasoning, just not a reliable one and alone will not offer any absolute certainty.
I the issue is you're extending his argument beyond what he says. Remember the section where he disputes Spinoza's atheistic total substance and also the religious belief in the soul? At the end he says that philosophers often must bow to religion, and he felt the need to do so, conceding that while his argument proves that you cannot prove there is a soul, it also does nothing to prove that there isn't one. The same thought can be applied to causation, and to object permanence, and all the other aspects of human nature that he says are not supported by any reasoning; he proves they cannot be proved, he does not prove that they do not exist.
Hume wasn't interested in simply making assertions, he was interested in investigating philosophical concepts and investigating them fully. He made mistakes but he was as good a philosopher as there is
>>17212609
custom shows that retards are dabbed on when humechads are present, while the necessary connexion cannot be proved, I refer to the faculties of human nature to say that there is a constant causation of dabbed on retards and humechads. Regardless of who is dabbing, it is evident the retards being dabbed on.

[Anonymous No.17212886]

Was Hume the fattest philosopher?

[Anonymous No.17212937]

Tere Marinovic

[Anonymous No.17213067]

>>17212886

[Anonymous No.17213075]

>>17211015
He influenced Kant, OP. You are a retard. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.17213133]

>>17212886
Have you seen G.K. Chesterton bro? Other fatties are fat and it's something they feel ashamed of, my man Chesterton had an achievement of a gullet.

[Anonymous No.17213135]

>>17211015
Voltaire

[Anonymous No.17213220]

>>17212603
Based, Kierkegaard is onions

[Anonymous No.17213879]

>>17212853
Jesus christ you clearly don't understand what I'm saying and don't want to address important critiques of Hume: Hume denies a priori knowledge, but Kant proves that his a posteriori propositions based in custom require necessary, a priori conditions which underlie empirical experience. I'm not falsely extending his argument, he literally states no necessity is involved in matters of fact, yet Kant proves that there are necessary a priori conditions which make experience possible. You clearly haven't read Kant lol.

[Anonymous No.17213957]

>>17211138
You misread him

[Anonymous No.17214039]

>>17211618
And Boswell fucks his wife lmao

[Anonymous No.17214150]

Bertrand Russell

[Anonymous No.17214155]

>>17211109
Came to say this.

[Anonymous No.17214204]

>>17211634
True enlightenment

[Anonymous No.17214208]

>>17211015
You anon, you are a worse philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17214228]

>>17214208
BBASESD PUT ME IN THE SCREENSHOT PUT IT ON EBAY!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.17214231]

>>17211015
>>17211049
>>17211065
>>17211066
>>17211077
>>17211083
>>17211087
>>17211088
>>17211103
>>17211109
>>17211110
>>17211113
>>17211127
>>17211128
>>17211135
>>17211138
>>17211150
>>17211157
>>17211159
>>17211173
>>17211183
>>17211367
>>17211384
>>17211410
>>17211416
>>17211524
>>17211612
>>17211618
>>17211633
>>17211634
>>17211638
>>17211707
>>17211720
>>17211726
>>17211741
>>17211825
>>17211878
>>17211895
>>17211897
>>17211995
>>17212046
>>17212097
>>17212105
>>17212147
>>17212172
>>17212194
>>17212325
>>17212587
>>17212603
>>17212609
>>17212853
>>17212886
>>17212937
>>17213067
>>17213075
>>17213133
>>17213135
>>17213220
>>17213879
>>17213957
>>17214039
>>17214150
>>17214155
>>17214204
>>17214208

Have sex

[Anonymous No.17214234]

>>17213220
thanks anon, I'm glad someone else can't stand that joseph smith lookalike too.

[Anonymous No.17214236]

>>17214231
I refuse.

[Anonymous No.17214239]

>>17213133
>On another occasion Chesterton remarked to his friend George Bernard Shaw, "To look at you, anyone would think a famine had struck England." Shaw retorted, "To look at you, anyone would think you had caused it."

[Anonymous No.17214242]

>>17214231
too late, I already have. not recently tho

[Anonymous No.17214257]

>>17214231
Never!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.17214260]

David Hume came to mind first too. He's not dumb but so much of what he says is verifiably wrong. Edward Feser makes Hume sound retarded when he debunks him.

[Anonymous No.17214261]

All gonna to agree this:
Rusell

[Anonymous No.17214286]

>>17214260
>but when you throw a brick at a window it COULD turn into a bunny midair and not break the window

[Anonymous No.17214364]

>>17214260
>Edward Feser makes Hume sound retarded when he debunks him.

[Anonymous No.17214598]

I fail to understand why this board is mostly anglo-americans and yet think anglo-american philosophy is cringe.

/lit/ is a LARP board now.

[Anonymous No.17214624]

>>17214598
It's just that Anglo Empiricism is awful.

[Anonymous No.17214679]

>>17214624
what's wrong with it? It's what gave you this board and your NEET-bucks.

Or would you rather be in China? or Egypt? or worse, Cuba?

[Anonymous No.17214680]

>>17211109
Nobody who criticizes Singer actually shows that his arguments are wrong though. He brutally examines the apparent justification of so many moral arguments and shows them to be bullshit, and his thoughts have resulted in plenty of actual practical action instead of remaining schoolboy pedantry.

[Anonymous No.17214703]

>>17214286
>but when you throw a brick at a window it COULD turn into a bunny midair and not break the window

Yes, not only can't you not rule out this possibility through reasons, quantum mechanics doesn't specifically prohibit it either.

[Anonymous No.17215529]

Peter "but muh drowning child" Singer.

[Anonymous No.17216031]

>>17213957
no u

[Anonymous No.17216044]

>>17211015
Berkeley

[Anonymous No.17216054]

Locke was a fucking retard and about 95% of our problems today are because of his astoundingly midwit ideas.

[Anonymous No.17216068]

Frankfurt school kikes
Postmodernist pseuds
Basically everyone after 1940

[Anonymous No.17216109]

>>17214680
>we should not be so anthropocentric, animals are people too
>let's stop eating animals because bad
>"bbut animals eat eachother?"
>uhm yes but we don't need to behave like animals or whatever

[Anonymous No.17216115]

>>17211113

[Anonymous No.17216171]

>>17211015
Hume's Of Suicide was good.

[Anonymous No.17216185]

>>17214680
Singer doesn't provide a proper moral framework. He is just a crypto-utiliarian who bases his morality on "common sense" conceptions of what is ethical and what it isn't. He doesn't engage with any of the philosophers who have worked on showing that this leads to a lot of contradictory results, nor does he consider the fact that the idea of a utility function might be a spook.

[Anonymous No.17216190]

>>17211015
Most of them desu.

[Anonymous No.17216211]

why do you guys hate rousseau so much?

[Anonymous No.17216225]

>>17216211
They probably just read somewhere that he influenced Marx and based their opinion of him on that.

[Anonymous No.17216275]

>>17216109
>Shit that was BTFO centuries ago
We can avoid harming creatures unnecessarily and thrive ourselves. You can't justify things from the fact that others happen to behave in some way.

>>17216185
Now this is much more substantial, but the problem is I don't care, as his takedowns of other conventional moralities that excuse avoidable cruelty are what matter and why what he says has value. Singer fails to create a positive moral system that he can show is sound, but nobody has done this and since I don't honestly believe that this is possible or even valuable, I don't worry that his particular brand of 'preference utilitarianism' is filled with all kinds of nonsense because I don't hold any other philosopher to a higher standard on this particular domain. There is no justification for having no sympathy towards animals.

[Anonymous No.17216289]

[Anonymous No.17216309]

>>17216275
>as his takedowns of other conventional moralities
I agree, 95% of people have terribly inconsistent views regarding animal cruelty which Singer does a good job taking down. He takes the wrong direction though. Instead of deciding that our intuitions should not form the basis of morality whatsoever, he takes the surface-intuitions to their logical conclusions.

>but nobody has done this
Contractarianists provide a sensible framework with no contradictions which bypasses metaphysical considerations entirely. See Scanlon. Is it definitive? Obviously not, in fact I am coming to prefer Neoplatonist ethics over it. It doesn't engage with metaphysics. But it is strictly better than Singer's framework.

>There is no justification for having no sympathy towards animals.
I could just as easily say:
There is no justification for having sympathy towards animals.