/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6701778]

Who is the most important modern philosopher?

[Anonymous No.6701780]

>>6701778
'Modern' meaning?

[Anonymous No.6701788]

>>6701778
Kant

[Anonymous No.6701808]

>>6701780
Descartes -> now

[Anonymous No.6701812]

>>6701788 and Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger
2nd tier: Bergson, Husserl, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida

If you meant strictly "contemporary" then probably Badiou and Agamben.

[Anonymous No.6701823]

>>6701778

>philosopher
>important

[Anonymous No.6701830]

>>6701788
Kant is a phenomena. You don't know anything about him so fuck outta here!

[Anonymous No.6701837]

L Ron Hubbard

[Anonymous No.6701838]

>>6701812
Forgot to add Deleuze to the 2nd tier.

>>6701808
If I would have to pick one then Heidegger (Nietzsche and Hegel are also close). He shows how limited and stuck everybody from Plato or at least Aristotle to his own times is. He's still partially within Kantian tradition (e.g. his "existential analytic") but where he breaks with the past it's really heavy and long-sighted.

[Anonymous No.6701955]

Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.6701962]

Rand

[Anonymous No.6701964]

>>6701955
Oh shit lol also Heidegger, whose philosophy of language is the best philosophy of language

[Anonymous No.6701978]

>>6701778
memes aside, Zizek.

[Anonymous No.6701997]

>>6701978
How so?

[Anonymous No.6702049]

>>6701997
youre not getting any anwsers faggot, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6702068]

In terms of relevance to how modern philosophy is approached and who has had the most impact, there's no other answer than Kant.

[Anonymous No.6702090]

>>6701978
memes aside, no

[Anonymous No.6702167]

>>6701812
hahahahahahahaha this list sums up how fucking retarded this board is, Derrida in a list of important philosophers.

Quine, Kripke, Lewis, Churchland - Actual modern philosophers who have contributed to the world.

[Anonymous No.6702216]

>>6701838
>He shows how limited and stuck everybody from Plato or at least Aristotle to his own times is.

The dude strawmanned his way into philosophy immortality.

"LOL NOPE U FORGOT ABOUT BEING! HAHA WREKT!"

You don't even need to read Gadamer to see how he simplifies his opponents. But what do you expect from a Nietzschean.

My answer would be Hegel or Kant.

[Anonymous No.6702226]

>>6702216
How is the Cartesian Ego not totally removed from what is ready-to-hand, though? You're simplifying him yourself, he spends much more time analyzing the way people have related to Being throughout history as expressed through language and philosophy than he does dancing on the graves of mechanists.

[Anonymous No.6702242]

I have a fruend who has never read any philosophy. Is ant her to Elise the limitations of her own mind and the way in which ourinds create our world, so that she can find true happiness and peace. Any recommendations?

[Anonymous No.6702284]

>>6702242
Tell her to read Kant's three critiques and it'll be alright.

Jokes aside, I once tried to introduce a guy who was way deep in scientism to Kant. The idea was to show him that the deterministic materialism of scientism is not the sole way to go. The guy's conclusion was that philosophy is useless and that science will even take care of ethics, given enough time. We never spoke again.

[Anonymous No.6702302]

>>6702284
>science will even take care of ethics, given enough time
This is funny, it's kinda the reverse of some religious tendencies: "God gave us morals, and maybe in the future He will show us the ultimate truth too! If only we follow His morals..." If only we follow the rules of science we will discover ethics too!

[Anonymous No.6702306]

>>6702226
Read some Gadamer. The history of philosophy is not the history of progressive concealment of being. And Plato does not conceal being.

[Anonymous No.6702314]

There is only one who hasn't been defeated, one who hasn't been deconstructed and rendered irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6702320]

>>6702314
Is he really a "Philosopher?" I think he's merely "loud."

[Anonymous No.6702327]

>>6702314
Does he address antinatalism in The Moral Landscape? I can't see how utilitarianism doesn't lead to "let's kill everyone" if you include negative utilitarianism too.

[Anonymous No.6702334]

>>6702320
He has a bachelor in Philosophy from Stanford university.

[Anonymous No.6702371]

>>6702314
you can't be "rendered irrelevant" if you were never relevant, friend-o

(being relevant on the internet alone isn't relevant at all)

[Anonymous No.6702383]

>>6702314
this. I wish Sam Harris browsed /lit/ so he could shut down those fucking stupid christfags

[Anonymous No.6702386]

>>6701778

[Anonymous No.6702408]

>>6702383
I would rather see he would wreck all these annoying mesopotamians. fucking hate their nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6702410]

>mfw people haven't taken the leap of faith and accepted based kierkegaard as the GOAT of philosophy

[Anonymous No.6702440]

>>6702327

>I can't see how utilitarianism doesn't lead to "let's kill everyone" if you include negative utilitarianism too.

Harris starts from the premise that the best possible world is one where every organism maximally flourishes. In his premise he already implies that an organism that is maximally flourishing is better off than a dead organism.

[Anonymous No.6702448]

>>6702410
>existenshit comics

fuck off back to reddit

[Anonymous No.6702450]

>>6702216
>>6702306
>Gadamer
is there any similarity between him and Badiou? what I have in mind is truth as event, but I'm not familiar with either of them.

[Anonymous No.6702455]

>>6701778
>Who is the most important modern philosopher?
Stirner for intellectually destroying the left before they even really got started.

[Anonymous No.6702462]

As much as I love me some Deleuze, I'm gonna have to give it to Heidegger.

Philosophy after Heidegger could not be done in the same way as before Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.6702493]

>>6702306
>The history of philosophy is not the history of progressive concealment of being.
The history of the world isn't the unfurling of God and freedom, either, but I still like Hegel and give him credit where credit is due.

>And Plato does not conceal being.
The metaphysics of presence, especially Platonic idealist metaphysics, remove us from our experience of the ready-to-hand. That's literally their purpose: taking the mind out of the body and presenting it with pure formal representations that aren't identical to what is physically present.
Are you defending naïve Platonism against Aristotelianism? Aristotle makes some good objections and elucidates Being in ways Plato doesn't bother to do because of the format he wrote in.

[Anonymous No.6702639]

>>6702334
He's a dumb and loud undergrad. Not a "philosopher."

[Anonymous No.6702649]

>>6702493
Time to read Gadamer and get off Heidegger's dick.

[Anonymous No.6702658]

>>6702167
In what way has Kripke "contributed to the world" that matters in anybodies lives?

[Anonymous No.6702687]

Chris Langan

[Anonymous No.6702706]

>>6702649
I'll read Gadamer, I'm just saying that you're writing off Heidegger too easily. I bet you're a Derridafag, too.

[Anonymous No.6702740]

Where did Hegel get his ideas from? Kant
Kant set some (if not most) of the bases for all the philosophy that comes afterwards

[Anonymous No.6702742]

>>6702706
Why would I be a Derridafag if I'm critiquing Heidegger? They're the same.

I'm just saying that you're accepting everything Heidegger says too easily.

See Max Scheler's critique of Heidegger. Heidegger, I think, willfully ignores the point and says "Well that's pretty good but you forgot about Being. Moving on."

[Anonymous No.6702749]

>>6702740
I have heard that we're all Kantian after Kant, so probably Kant is the right choice.

[Anonymous No.6702755]

>>6702687
Why?

[Anonymous No.6702823]

>>6702742
>Heidegger, I think, willfully ignores the point and says "Well that's pretty good but you forgot about Being. Moving on."
Considering that his philosophy is entirely about Being I think it makes sense for him to focus on that element of other thinkers' philosophies. He does willfully disengage with a lot of important ideas but that was mostly because they weren't his focus. I'm not saying he was the greatest thinker of the 20th century, only that your criticisms seem to miss the point of Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.6702845]

>>6701837
kek

[Anonymous No.6702867]

>>6702823
I'm saying Heidegger's criticisms seem to miss the point of other philosophies. Scheler critiques him for being too simplistic and Heidegger says "naw, you forgot Being."

Did Heidegger ever really respond to his critics? I know he had a small dialogue with a neo-Kantian in his early career but he never responded, to my knowledge at least, to Scheler, Adorno, Levinas, Gadamer or even Nishitani, who demolished his case for "authenticity."

He just covered his ears to all critiques and chilled in his cabin.

[Anonymous No.6702875]

Objectively speaking, Karl Marx.

He is the most influential scholar ever: http://www.nature.com/news/who-is-the-best-scientist-of-them-all-1.14108

[Anonymous No.6702882]

>>6702314
Ben Stiller?

[Anonymous No.6702884]

>>6702867
>He just covered his ears to all critiques and chilled in his cabin.
I see nothing wrong with that.
I don't know which critiques Heidegger responded to, I just started studying him in the past year and I'm still working my way through Being & Time. But it really does seem to me like you aren't giving him enough credit, you haven't even outlined ITT what Gadamer's critique is or answered the one question someone else asked you about him. I'd like to know more about this man's ideas before accepting them.

[Anonymous No.6702890]

>>6701778
Objectively Hegel (though Hegel is also the most important philosopher of all time)

[Anonymous No.6702904]

>>6701812

>Bergson
My nigga.

[Anonymous No.6702909]

>>6702440
What about the difference between "dead" and "not existing"? Is it better that a child is born, suffers for a week, and dies, than for them not to be born at all?

Conversely, is it our moral imperative to kill some people in order to save a species from existing, if that species flourishing is one of our highest moral imperatives?

I'll read his book if he actually addresses these sorts of questions.

[Anonymous No.6702933]

>>6702909

>Is it better that a child is born, suffers for a week, and dies, than for them not to be born at all?

This question never makes sense to me. The word "better" only makes sense if there are two options available for this being, but there are not. That implies that the being somehow exists before it comes into existence. It doesn't make sense to say that it's "better for the baby to not exist at all" because you're ascribing qualities into a something that doesn't exist.

>Conversely, is it our moral imperative to kill some people in order to save a species from existing, if that species flourishing is one of our highest moral imperatives?

I'm pretty sure Harris attaches the "value" the flourishing of an organism has to its general intelligence and complexity of its awareness. So it would depend on what species you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6702940]

>>6702933
It's a question about which world-state is better, which is what Sam appears to be comparing in pic.

I downloaded a pdf of The Moral Landscape the other day, I'll read it just so I can know if Sam Harris shitposters are onto something, but I'm pretty skeptical that he's doing anything except shouting, "Science!" the loudest.

[Anonymous No.6702943]

>>6701778
Plato, Aristotle and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.6702948]

>>6702943
Sorry, didn't read "modern"

[Anonymous No.6702963]

>>6702383

[Anonymous No.6702970]

>>6702963
>look ma! I respondededededed with that poster again!
Jesus will be so glad!

[Anonymous No.6702976]

>>6702875
I agree, everyone has to deal with marxism nowadays, for better or worse.

[Anonymous No.6702990]

>>6702970
:^)

[Anonymous No.6702992]

>>6701778

I was talking with a philosopher at a party, I asked him, "After all your years of study, after all the books, what is did you take away from it, what was the most important thing you learned?" He replied, "It begins, and will eventually end with Descartes."

>Was he right?
>Also, what do you think he meant?

[Anonymous No.6702993]

>>6702963
that dude can fuckin move tbqh

[Anonymous No.6703005]

>>6702992
he meant that babby is formed because ur dad gave ur mum the D, and once you grow up the meaning of life is to give some other bish the D.

[Anonymous No.6703015]

>>6703005

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.6703026]

>>6702992
I think he needs to read more books.

It begins with Plato and ends with Plato and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.6703038]

>>6703026
>I think he needs to read more books.
I think you are probably correct, he may not have been the brightest in his graduating class but,
>>6703026
>It begins with Plato and ends with Plato and Hegel.

Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.6703046]

>>6702992
1. In terms of modern philosophy, he was half right and, if he meant a final sublation of Cartesian dualism as the end point, he was probably fully right. The fact that postmodernists have to go out of their way to remind us that the subject-object distinction is a lie is evidence that we haven't overcome Descartes yet.
2. Modern philosophy begins with Descartes, objectively speaking. Some say Eckhart but I go with Dicky. The image of the Cartesian Ego as the soul (which really is a significantly different conception of the soul than many pre-Cartesian conceptions, be they tripartite, dualist, or monist) defines modern thinking in a very powerful way. It has to be overcome for modern philosophy to end. Not just intellectually (since Kant, Hume, Sennett, Hegel, Spinoza, and literally anyone else worth naming has shown what's wrong with the idea) but spiritually, as well; we need to consign Cartesianism to oblivion to end modernity.

[Anonymous No.6703054]

>>6703038
Philosophy is Plato, Hegel is Plato for modernity. He's the negation of the negation of idealism.

[Anonymous No.6703074]

What does /lit/ think of Schelling and his Naturphilosophie?

[Anonymous No.6703086]

>>6703046

If one wanted to understand the things you just wrote, what book list would you subscribe?

I'm sorry if I sound ridiculous right now. I want to learn more on philosophy other than my basic philosophy class I took as an Undergrad. I'm a Medical Engineer, I've spent most of my life learning hard science. It has only been now, later in my life, that I want to pick up philosophy for my own personal endeavours. I'm 39, never too late, yes?

[Anonymous No.6703434]

>>6703086
The Cave and the Light by Arthur L. Herman addresses all the figures I mentioned within the context of Western philosophy in relation to Plato and Aristotle. It's not a great book, but it's an enjoyable read and should give you a light background, enough book titles to satisfy you, and a good chronology.

[Anonymous No.6703457]

Von Dorf for his post-industrial fifth-wave objectivist autobiography.

[Anonymous No.6703475]

>>6701788
this

[Anonymous No.6704150]

>>6701778
hume deleuze
also any philosopher leaving the philosophy throughout the philosophy

[Anonymous No.6704444]

>>6701778
Peter Ustinov...?

[Anonymous No.6704447]

>>6704150
would WRECK middle

[Anonymous No.6704455]

>>6704150
would WRECK left


far left

[Anonymous No.6704472]

>>6702462
Deleuze is the only one to give Heidegger what's coming to him tho

[Anonymous No.6704493]

>>6703434

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.6704532]

>>6704472
In what way? I'm really interested in Deleuze's relationship to Heidegger. D seems to be the only one from that time or scene that wasn't so clearly influenced by H.

[Anonymous No.6704552]

>all this lack of Hume

You wanna know how I know /lit/ doesn't read original texts?

[Anonymous No.6704559]

>>6704552
You know how I know you're gay?

[Anonymous No.6704583]

No camus in this thread and one reference to wittgenstein, cmon guys you gotta read the original works. Don't just take the philosophy course and read the text books and other commentaries. It's like Kant is the best cause he's all you heard about.

[Anonymous No.6704601]

>>6704552
Which authors that came after Hume have you read?

>>6704583
>Camus being *the most important modern philosopher*
Now this is just b8.

[Anonymous No.6704685]

>>6703074
schelling looks like a monster. i wouldn't feel comfortable being in the same room as him

[Anonymous No.6704688]

>>6702314
lel
he is yet to become as good as Chomsky
nobody cares about ben stiller bro

[Anonymous No.6704695]

>>6703074
I find Prussian regime resurrecting Schelling ten years after Hegel's death so as to combat radical Hegelianism a very fascinating episode in intellectual history.

Also, his speech that was heard by Engels, Bakunin, Kierkergaard, Stirner and Schopenhauer simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.6704981]

>>6704601
Not that dude, but he's interestingly listed as one of the major philosophers in an introduction to the 20th century edited by Margot Fleischer that I have, along with
>Georg Edward Moore, Wittgenstein, Quine, Husserl, Scheler, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Adorno, Bloch, and Marcuse
He's an essential part of the 20th century at the very least
More important than St*rner.

[Anonymous No.6705585]

>>6702314
Lel 6 buttblasted replies to read, thank you for this post

[Anonymous No.6705592]

>>6704981
He really isn't, French existentialism is a footnote.

[Anonymous No.6705611]

Probably Alfred Korzybski.

[Anonymous No.6705616]

>>6704532
Deleuze was heavily steeped in Husserl, Heidegger, and Hegel during his early studies in philosophy. And he didn't fancy that school of the french one bit. I guess you could make the argument that Deleuze is metaphysics' answer to Heidegger's destruktion. Deleuze goes back to modern metaphysics, but only to affirm.

He mentions Heidegger at various points throughout his writing (What is Called Thinking? and Identity and Difference are specifically mentioned) but never really in a substantive way and as far as I'm aware, only in regard to difference and thinking.

They really are working on two different planes. If they were ever to meet, they would just be talking past one another.

Which is difficult for me because I so often vacillate between Deleuze and Heidegger. But they are yin and yang. Distinct and almost wholly incompatible and yet complementary.

Though not--there are people in the speculative realism camp who are working on strange Deleuze/Heideggerean ontology. I'm not particularly interested in the lot of it though.

[Anonymous No.6705726]

>>6705616
>I'm not particularly interested in the lot of it though.
why not ?

[Anonymous No.6705956]

>>6702882
Had a good smeck over that one to myself.

[Anonymous No.6706578]

>>6704688
>chumpsky
kek. Sam Harris is infinetely deeper and more intelligent than Noamy "muh drones" Chumpsky

[Anonymous No.6706588]

>>6704601
Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, Stirner, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger..

It's about the MOST important, and if you fail to recognize how fucking important Hume was then you can't be saved

[Anonymous No.6707120]

>>6702649
which Gadamer book exactly? Definitely interested.

[Anonymous No.6707149]

>>6704150
It's so unbearably sad to me that those two girls will turn into the woman on the right. Why must beauty be spoiled, God! Why must you spoil it!

[Anonymous No.6707216]

>>6705592
Everyone has read the Stranger.

[Anonymous No.6707248]

>>6707216
So what?