Is this man the most based philosopher to ever live?
>inb4 diogenes shits up the thread
>>1005137
Hume
u
m
e
>>1005143
/thread desu
His concept of humans as a Tabula Rasa is flat-out, objectively wrong.
>>1005156
>faulting a man for having 1 ill-conceived theory
Are you implying there are other philosophers who have never had a fucked up theory?
As a Christian, I flatly deny his idea of property rights as being absolute.
>>1005185
*as a socialist
>>1005156
Elaborate?
>inb4 Diogenes
So your question was really,
"Besides Diogenes, is this man..."
Because Diogenes is the most based philosopher in all of history.
>>1005219
>muh instincts
>muh genetic predisposition to intelligence
It's objectively correct and some idiots, like the guy you responded to, can't accept that.
>>1005184
That's funny because every philosopher is mostly wrong.
>>1005240
To be fair, its hard for most (read all) of them to be right, or wrong because all they deal with is intellectual theories with no real basis. Its literally muh feels
>>1005185
>>1005191
>Christian
>socialist
>difference
hah
>>1005137
>british philosopher
>based
pick one
pic related is the obvious GOAT
Kant tee bee aitch family
>>1005184
His political theory is also disgusting.
my top 5 would be (in no order):
>hegel
>foucault
>diogenes
>rousseau
>lao tzu
r8 or h8
>>1005231
>He actually believes that humans are blank slates
Aristotle is still #1
plebs >>>/out/
>>1005137
Hegel over everything.
Nietzsche is objectively, OBJECTIVELY, the best philosopher of all time. OF ALL TIME.
"just imagine, everybody having these fictitious privileges. But wait! okay, it's actually all based on this natural law an shieet.... but wait! Okay, the state can do whatever it likes because they're not actually natural forever. Now go apply this shitty hodgepodge of contradictions for a hundred years and report back. Nothing can go wrong, because everything is inherent in nature (^:"
STOP TEACHING LOCKE
>>1005184
Well, yeah, I can fault him for it. I don't think his philosophy is entirely trash for it, but it is a fault.
>>1005219
Basically, we're guided in part by a bunch of inherent predispositions that are ingrained at a neurological level. We're a mixture of nature and nurture, which means we're not entirely blank slates.
The notion of property rights as absolute, or any rights as absolute is bloody absurd. The very fact they can be, and are continually violated, and their status as "rights" doesn't seem to inhibit this in the slightest seems to suggest they're nothing of substance; entirely arbitrary fictions.
>>1006172
In short... spooks?
>>1006222
I strongly dislike the term due to its use in memery, but ultimately, yes. You can choose to value them if you see fit, but the idea of them as some sort of universal absolute is laughable.
>>1006244
>disliking memes
>DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN'T DO!!!!
really makes you think
>>1005955
Could you explain why?
>>1005137
>espouse liberalism
>write constitution for the largest slave colony on the American coast
>>1005955
>Kants ethics are absurd
>>1005951
>foucault
Why do you like him? His stuff seems impressive at first but honestly at best he gives historical and psychological analysis that's nice but not innovative and at worst he projects his neuroses onto society.
>implying you don't even want a strong monarchy
Separation of powers is overrated anyway
>>1005955
nigga youre absurd
>>1005137
It's my job to shit up your thread.
>>1005998
>he actually doesn't understand tabula rasa and thinks that humans are born with innate concepts
Plato, I have a small man for you....
