Clearly a nihilist.

Jesus

>>202277

Oh, and you have to click on the picture to see who it is.

the comedian

Does the black box relate to Stirner's nihilism in any way?

Anyway, Hume ftw.

That's not how you draw Albert Camus.

>>202283

Too bad he didn't exist as you know him, and was in fact a composite character of several self-proclaimed "messiahs" of the time.

Anyone who doesn't say Plato is wrong.

>>202296

Nah, I just got it off google images without knowing it would display like that. Pissed me off when I started the thread and saw it.

>>202312

laughingface.jpg

>>202277

I don't recognize the drawing (click on the pictures, it's not jsut a balck box fags). It looks like Tristian Tzara.

>>202312

Aristotle was here, Plato's a loser.

>>202326

It says Stirner right in the filename, Jambalaya.

>>202277

obvs. the image is socrates.

blank = nothing.

"I am the wisest man alive for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

Kierkegaard, bitches.

david bohm

>>202311
Nope, he was there. The bible says so.

>>202326

The drawing is of Max Stirner. He was one of the greatest anarchist, atheist, and egoist thinkers of all time. There is a certain school of thought that says Nietzsche ripped him off.

Heidegger, of course. "Why is there Being at all, and not much rather Nothing?"

>>202277
i recognized him. all hail.

>>202354

Neitzsche

yorkshire

>>202370

Is he in any way related to Nietzsche?

>>202363

Yes, some people can't see deeper than that.

>>202296

Fuck yeah! The God Delusion completely ripped off him and Russell and yet is suddenly the "Atheist Bible".

Fuck that!

Philo ftw! Cleanthes and Demea ftl!

>>202344

Cool, I might check out his writings. Which book do you recommend?

Zeno of Elea. Just try to solve this fucker's puzzles.

>>202379

Don't get me wrong, he was a good thinker in his own right. But the fact that he was such a hotsie totsie Nazi while at the same time having had a Jewish mentor and lover is a bit off-putting.

>>202336
this

Through time, my favourites:

Heraclites
Aristotle
Sextus Empiricus
Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
Hume
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Nietzsche
Jean-Paul Sartre
Jacques Derrida
Michel Foucault

Daniel Dennett

Putting your ass in a state of nature since 1632.

>>202390

The Ego and Its Own. Best book of all time. All his stuff is great though. I love how he points out how retarded Secular Humanists are for rejecting Christianity but embracing Christian principles like a high-class whore.

>>202414

>Derrida
>Foucault
>Dennett

Huh?

>>202336

I liked Kieerkegard as a forerunner of existentialism, but his late stuff was too religious, it felt contradictory.

>>202414

Only 2 of those are any good. You have pretty bad taste man.

theodore adorno

>>202423

WTF you never heard of Michel Foucault or Jacques Derrida?

Diogenes

>>202311
>>202340
well most people already recognize his existence, but not his divinity. its possible he was the son of god or a person that had trolls follow him to make other people believe he was by writing about him. that's all faith based crap, believe if you want to, don't if you don't

>>202434

No, I'm just a bit surprised you like both the gods of post-modernism/post-structuralism and the god of scientific rationalism. That's like saying you like both Marx and Rand.

>>202428

I mostly appreciate them for their influence, and how they set themselves apart from their contemporaries ; I could probably not find a philosopher who's direct pinions I totally agree with.

Which 2 philosophers are you referring to though?

>>202452

Marx + Rand = Current economy.

>>202465

Heraclites
Aristotle

>>202434

lol, like if anyone but sociologyfags would want to bother with that nonsense. Foucault is a cool guy, I admit he has some points, but he's basically just applied Nietzsche. Derrida just commits obscure terrorism.

He's spelling bullshit, are self-refuting, and tells everyone who doesn't agree with him for idiots for not understanding.

>>202466

> Implying Marx was correct

Weber says hello

>>202466

A fair point. I guess, in a way, one can take from Foucault and Derrida the notion that the foundations of western thought should be questioned, and from Dennett the idea that an understanding of science is important for philosophic thought.

Alan Watts

>>202490
>>202490
>>202490

Implying anyone in the philosophical community except faggots who call themselves "Rand-Scholars" take her seriously (even people who agree with 95% of her conclusions).

>>202497

*takes her seriously

Paul Feyerabend, ftw

>>202427
Fear and Trembling wasn't religious?

Anyway, you seem to be pretty unaware of his pseudonymous project. The contradiction you're referring to is deliberate.

>>202452

Foucault distanced himself from the structuralist and post-modernist titles, and he is even quoted by some constructivist international relations theorists. He can't really be categorized, but however, you are absolutely right, these are philosophers who's thoughts are opposed, but they have had tremendous influence on today's philosophy, and I consider their philosophical experiences intertwined. Their opposition has produced a sort of dialectic, and I hold them both in high esteem.

>>202472
> Derrida just commits obscure terrorism.

Have you actually spent any time with his texts?

>>202472

You just quoted wikipedia.

>>202535

In his defense, most of the people I know who like Foucault and Derrida are middle-aged lesbians in the English department.

Real skeptics like Hume, mothafucka!

>>202550
Derrida is not his fans or his disciples. I wish people would stop doing that.

>>202490

No one takes Ayn Rand seriously. She writes philosophy for the masses, like a consumer product, like a philosophical celebrity.

Most modern philosophers haven't even taken the time to criticize her.

Ayn Rand was the final chapter in millenia-old history of idealistic (in a pejorative sense) philosophy.

>>202427
this. existentialist reporting in.

>>202466

Marx + Rand = Rarx

Dostoevsky

>>202559

You're quite right, and I can understand how it must be frustrating. Be when the vast majority of someone's fanbase consists of complete morons, it's pretty hard to not associate them with their fans.

>>202570
Protip: Existentialism is not a system of beliefs.

Alfred Jarry.

>>202490

>>202580

Is he really a philosopher so much as a writer of philosophic fiction?

gb2 /sci/

>>202586

It is both a system of beliefs and a subset of philosophy that deals with responding to nihilism.

>>202603

Those faggots would "lol, liberal arts" this thread to death, dude.

>>202589

PATAPHYSICS FUCK YEAR

>>202611

Existentialism in itself isn't an ethical basis for decisions, however, it does imply that one can create his own values, meaning and goals (unlike nihilists) that truly come from within, simply because we need to set ourselves standards in life.

>>202596
I believe there is a philosophy to be extracted. Espeicially from the Super Karamazov Brothers

>>202614

I fucking hate that. Scientists and Engineers treat us like we're in fucking Womens' Studies or something. Those ungrateful assholes have no idea what Philosophy has done for their fields and continues to do for the human race. Of course, even when you point this out to them, they respond with the ever-disgusting "HUR DUR MONEY".

>>202611
Beliefs such as? Before you answer this, Sartre =/= existentialism.

>>202611

It's obviously a very broad belief system, but there are a few prominent (if vague) similarities between the philosophies of various existentialist thinkers throughout history (i.e., the creation of one's own meaning/purpose, self-determination, etc.).

>>202674

Meant to respond to >>202653,

I do that all the time.

>>202676

Looks like a trannie.

>>202687

>>202674
>the creation of one's own meaning/purpose, self-determination, etc.).

This is a bit inaccurate, it would be more accurate to say that meaning/purpose/truth has to be appropriated by the individual. It's not necessarily the case that one creates it.

OP here, what do you guys think of this?

I've been working on it for a few months.

>>202716

>>202514
Feyerabend is win

>>202720

Yeah, well, it sucks. This alignment comes from D&D for fuck's sake.

>>202730

Using D&D morality, regardless of your own ideology, how accurate is it?

>>202720
Looks fine, though Rand is NOT Lawful Evil. Either True Neutral or Neutral Evil.

>>202720

Is that Sade at bottom right?
Sade was a fucking rationalist.

>>202648

As a philosophy aficionado (that's not a very good term, but whatever) I must admit I always felt that science was a higher calling in terms of... requirements. I do agree that science today is both more complex and productive than philosophy today.

Yes. Science (a very general term, but you know what I mean; biology, chemistry, physics) is more intelligent. A science student, if he decided to care, could easily pick up a few books and gain great philosophical knowledge. A student of philosophy could not do the same with science as easily.

However, philosophy reveals underlying truths that show science of today was form through millenia of philosophy. These underlying truths aren't only historic, they are the foundations of science, and they still affect science as they change.

The problem is, when these science students think of philosophy they think of bullshit philosophers like Ayn Rand, and the ridiculous ethicists who try to proscribe morals in day-to-day affairs. They simply aren't well-versed in the subject and think philosophical discussions today are still the same thing as they were centuries ago.

>>202726
It's a pretty important distinction. Existentialism is not necessarily egoist.

>>202676

This is what happens when we have philosophical discussions in a literature board.

Oh wait, Rand was a shitty writer AND a hack philosopher.

>>202744

I say Lawful Evil because she had a very absolutist mentality, and hated both libertarians and anarchists, calling them "the hippies of the right" and "anti-intellectual", respectively.

Also, there's the whole Native American thing.

>>202762

How is creating one's own meaning egoist?

>>202753
>A science student, if he decided to care, could easily pick up a few books and gain great philosophical knowledge. A student of philosophy could not do the same with science as easily.

I know this to be completely fucking false. In both fields there are those that could easily work in the other field if they wanted and there are those that would have trouble understanding.

Your notion of what constitutes 'intelligence' is incredibly simplistic. I know plenty of students of science who are incapable of the abstract reasoning required by philosophy.

>>202753

When scientists start philosophing, they're pure win.
My country used to have a great high school cursus, extremely humanist, with both science and philosophy/literature. Now they dumped it for a strict science/not-science dichotomy.

>>202790
/second
His argument is weak, doesn't back up his claim.

>>202753

>A science student, if he decided to care, could easily pick up a few books and gain great philosophical knowledge

When trying to apply that knowledge or produce his own coherent philosophy, though, he'd fail miserably. Science students tend to have difficulty thinking inductively and abstractly. On a less relevant, more petty note, they are also fuckterrible writers.

>>202790

The "capability" to think about abstractions is a mindset, not a talent or a skill.

>>202674
It is a label applied to certain philosophers. You are right that there are common themes among them but it is not at all a system of belief.

First time I heard Ayn Rand was on 4chan. And I was a literature student.
Outside of the US no one gives a shit about her.

Science IS natural philosophy.

>>202749

Don't get me wrong, I fucking love Sade, it's just that under D&D specifications he's pretty CE.

Jiddu Krishnamurti or Aleister Crowley.

>>202826

Diogenes of Sinope
he was a REAL Cynic.

>>202844
Natural science was a precursor to modern science

>>202797

But what about a philosopher who starts doing science? And I mean actual hands-on science not commenting on science and it's methods.

>>202826
Ok, and lots of science students are incapable of assuming said mindset.

>>202865
Look at the history of philosophers who also did science (like Descartes)

>>202831

"Christianity" is a label applied to certain philosophers. There are common themes among them but it is not at all a system of belief.

"Materialist" is a label applied to certain philosophers. There are common themes among them but it is not at all a system of belief.

"Agorist" is a label applied to certain philosophers. There are common themes among them but it is not at all a system of belief.

Some of the greatest scientists have held a very philosophical mindset when dealing with science and philosophy. You can say the same for the philosopher, he analyzes his subject the same way a science would. Or at least, that's how I've always seen it.

>>202885

*Christian

>>202859

Anyone who lives in a jar and has to balls to call out Plato on some bullshit is King in my book.

>>202797

I agree, these philosopher-scientists are the true philosophers of tomorrow, and not the typical conception of a scholarly philosopher.

>>202888

The best philosophers have the capacity to think scientifically. The best scientists have the capacity to think philosophically.

>>202866

They should be taught to.

Gurdijeff here all of you here are faggots.

>>202902
It's settled, then, both have smarts in their noggin.

>>202904
Won't help.

Face it, some people just can't get into the mindset.

>>202904

They'd (retardedly) assume you're a post-modernist or relativist if you tried to teach them.

>>202888
that is why I said David Bohm

Philosophy discussion really should be taking place in /sci/.

>>202910
I don't think anyone disagree with that. Just with the claim that scientists categorically have the all the smarts philosophers have and then some.

>>202921

/lit/ is for humanities. /sci/ is for natural sciences. /r9k/ is for social sciences.

>>202925
That's generalizing.

>>202865

Back in the days (someone said Descartes, but he wasn't alone) yeah sure, but now science has just gotten too complex.
As I said now in my country you can't study both fields in depth anymore, so I had to make a choice between my love for physics and my interest for political science. I realized that political science would be more likely to grant me the sweet life, so that's the path I took. I still go to some physics and mathematics lectures in my free time - not a lot - with no diploma in the end, but you quickly lose sight of comprehension.

>>202921
Philosophy is not science or math. It does fall under the category of books (of the written variety).

Also all the people on /sci/ wouldn't know shit about it, would shit up the threads thinking they did or sage it because HURRRRR HUMANITIES

>>202934
And what is /b/ for? Science of trolling? Science of CP? Science of spam? (that last one sounds delicious)

>>202807

>>202950
Trolling is a art, not a science.

>>202925

Ask ten natural science majors to collectively write a paper on some random public policy issue. Ask one philosophy major to do the same thing. Nine times out of ten, the philosophy major's paper will be much better.

>>202902

>The best scientists have the capacity to think philosophically.


However, more great philosophers are great because of their thoughts than are great because of their actions whereas more great scientists are great because of their actions/concrete discoveries than are great by their thoughts.

Oh god that was a terrible sentence. But the point is, a great scientist, is more judged by his actions/concrete discoveries than his thoughts than a philosopher would be.

That was also an awful sentence. ffff I'm going to bed.

>>202971
I can see where you're going, but a philosopher can't split an atom.

>>202875

History. Science today isn't the same as it was back then. Not only is it more complicated, but there is simply much much much more to know.

>>202885
This makes no fucking sense at all. If you think christianity and existentialism are equivalent then you are a moron.

>>203001
Same holds true of philosophy

Okay, here's the last thing I'll say.

Doing science requires more underlying knowledge and thought than doing philosophy.

However, it's mostly because philosophy is PART of that underlying knowledge.

>>202943

But math and science can both be argued to derive from philosophy. And sure, it happens to be in book form, often, but that's like saying that video-game discussion should be on /g/. Or that manga should be discussed on /lit/.

Also, I've seen a bit of respect on /sci/ for certain philosophers, in the past few days.

Science, math & philosophy are all ways of attempting to gain information about reality, and thus should be discussed together. It's actually counterproductive to separate them too much.

>>203018
You do not need an underlying knowledge of philosophy to do science.

>>202987

He can put forth a cohesive ethical framework that provides justification for millions to work together with nothing but their own self-benefit in mind. He can identify and simplify principles of logic infinitely too arcane for most people. He can organize and synthesize knowledge from data produced by other fields.

Philosophy changes the world more than any other discourse.

philosophy should be critical of any concentration of power, even if it is (or perhaps especially when) it is embedded into the processes of truth-making, for example

SCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENCE

>>203032
The fact that you describe philosophy as a way to gain information about reality shows how little you know about it.

>>202934

I'm against the idea of saying philosophy is "literature". Philosophy can be oral just as well, and unlike literature in general, philosophy isn't done just for the sake of writing, culture or money (except for Ayn Rand of course)

Also, I took a look at sci and all their threads are simple and retarded. No, they are not snobs.

>>203002

The point is that you can argue that anything that is generally agreed upon to constitute a "belief system" is merely a vaguely defined intellectual tradition.

>>203060
And Shakespeare can be performed. Poetry can be oral too. Yet we still discuss them in their book form here.

>>203043
I agree with you on the first part, but I can't agree that one is more valuable than the other. They, to me, are two sides of the same coin. Their backs are touching.

Anyways, I should stop being a wasteful faggot and get back to work before someone realizes I hadn't done dick all day. Night

>>203036

Understanding it. Habeebing it.

>>203036

It's called the scientific method.

>>203072
>>203072
>>203072
>>203072
>>203072

THIS.

>>203043

I'm sorry but these sad sad people who write on the ethics of science are pathetic. They rely on outdated bogus morality to comment on things being done by smarter people who don't give a fuck about objections.

Ethics (in the moral, normative sense) is the worst example of philosophy's ties to science.

>>203002

not equivalent, but christianity has influenced existentialism to a great fucking degree

>>203050

Correct me, then.

>>203091

As a moral nihilist, I agree with you in principle, but you still sound pretty retarded.

>>203072
The scientific method is not "a knowledge of philosophy" in any sense at all. While it may be within the realm of philosophical discourse, it's highly parochial.

>>203068

NOOOOOOO.

Written and oral culture/thoughts are extremely different things! It goes WAY beyond the fact that one is on paper and the other is sounds. Read up on it.

>>203105

You say that as someone who takes it for granted. Science is nothing without solid epistemological foundations.

>>202807
>>202807
>>202807
>>202807
>>202807
>>202807
>>202807
>>202807
>>202807

>>203110
Summarize, please.

>>203110
You're missing my point. We aren't discussing oral philosophy here. Why should the existence of oral philosophy keep us from discussing the written kind?

>>203099
There are at least a dozen meta-philosophical perspectives that would deny it's a way to gain knowledge about the world. I'm not about to claim that it's any one of them. The point is that describing it essentially as gaining knowledge about the world (in the same sense as science and math, though even math arguably says nothing about the world) would be a fairly controversial statement and not at all well founded simply on its own.

>>203110

You're missing the point of his analogy.

>>203120

To play devil's advocate, one could say that science's basis is philosophical, but that its relevance is purely historical.

The Chinese hand-cannon lead to the existence of modern fire weapons (this is a banal example to illustrate my point, I don't know if that's true), but a modern man can still make guns without even knowing that hand-cannons even existed.

>>203120
>Science is nothing without solid epistemological foundations.

I know, but one doesn't need to know or care about them to do science. Just as I don't need to know about set theory to do multiplication, or about the proof that 1+1 = 2 in order to add one and one.

>>203157

True, but who's to say the basis of science isn't important?

>>203163

Dude, the scientific method is epistemology. If you don't know the scientific method, you get something like fucking phrenology.

>>203145

Literature is an art. Philosophy is not (although it can use art to convey messages).

It is, but one doesn't need to necessarily know it to utilize science and the scientific method. Sure, it helps to broaden your understanding, but really in the long term, it is irrelevant.

>>203187
Knowing the scientific method requires no epistemology. A machine could follow the scientific method.

Now, most people following it are going to have a basic notion that it relates to 'finding things out' but that's hardly "knowledge of philosophy"

>>203178

It's "important" in a way that it lead to science, that it's ideas are still presented (although in a new form), but I'm sure many scientists today don't care about Descartes, Hume, Bacon and co.

>>203192
This is not a literature board, it is a book board. Moot fucking said "here's your book board" not "here's your literature board".

>>203192

Well, even if you're right, there's no /phi/ board (yet), so this is the closest thing we have. /sci/ is full of assholes who are just going to "HUR DUR LIBERAL ARTS", /b/ is... well, /b/, and /r9k/ is just a wimpier version of /b/,.

>>203216
This thread is about philosophers who conveyed their ideas in book form. /lit/ wasn't meant to be a name drop board for people who like 1984 or some scifi shit. We are discussing writers/philosophers. That is what this board is about.

>>203204

They might not recognize it as such, but it is.

>>203242
It's still a fucking drop in the bucket in terms of having any sort of knowledge of philosophy, especially a substantive knowledge, so frankly I don't give a fuck.

>>203253

If a scientist understands the Scientific Method, he probably understands (to a certain extent) Scientific Rationalism, which is an extension of Skepticism. That's a working (if narrow) knowledge of a good portion of modern epistemology.