>ITT: God-tier philosophers.
>That is how I'd like to show myself to you: faithful, modest, nobleminded, imperturbable. What and immortal, too, and eternally young and immune from disease? No, but as one who can die in a god-like way.
>that lies in my power, that I can do, but the rest is not in my power, nor can I do it. I'll show you the sinews of a philosopher. And what sinews are those? Desire that never fails in its aim, aversion that never falls into what it wants to avoid, motivation that accords with one's duty, purpose that is carefully weighed, and assent that is not over hasty. That is what you'll see.
>the universe can be explained by physics
>mankind can be explained by biology
>god is a useless assumption and can be trimmed by Occam's razor.
Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has beenresolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feelingis nothing to us - Epicurus
>>325635
>If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
>>325509
Hope you're not some pathetic fedorafag fanboy just because Epicurus was "hurr durr the world's first atheist"
Epicurus actually did believe in Gods (notice the plural) and talks about Gods in many of his works.
>>325672
Wait, people like him for that reason?
I just like him because living an Epicurean life seems chill as fuck and he's got good ideas about what actually makes people happy.
>>325672
>One of the first philosophers who thoroughly researched the commonly asked question of what makes people happy and who's theories have been accepted and appraised by many for thousands of years.
>You probably just like him because he was "le evil atheistboy"
Holy shit, When it comes to Atheists, Christfags these days are
O B S E S S E D
B
S
E
S
S
E
D
Epicurus is degeneracy. It creates ultra sensitive people that cannot deal with problems and become hippies.
>>325786
(You)
>implying Heidegger didn't solve ontology
>>325786
In all honesty don't you think /pol/ would be a better fit for you than /his/? I'm not suggesting your general views should be silenced, if you could actually successfully articulate them, but simply ranting and raving vaguely about hippies and degeneracy clearly already has a suitable board for it.
>>325856
How did he solve ontology?
>>325856
>implying anyone understands Heidegger
>>325856
>continental philosophy
When will this meme die?
Plato, the one and only god tier philosopher.
>>325509
>>325509
based Daoism
>>326142
Is that quote even in the Tao Te Ching? I've seen it assigned to all sorts of people, from Plato to Confucious.
>>326207
>>325672
triggered
>>325856
>solving ontology
>solving
Empedocles
>>326207
I can agree with this
>>326142
>facebook philosophy
/thread
>>326245
No it's not. I've read the Tao Te Ching (or Daode jing, w/e) many times and that quote isn't in there at all.
But again, that's what happens when you use
> a facebook image
as an example of Daoism
>>327168
my negro
>mfw people still does metaphysics after this big guy
>>327168
>God tier
>got rekt by a woman
HAHAHAHA!
>>327338
What woman
>>326142
>thinking Laozi was a real person
>>325509
>Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.
Posting Dawkins in a thread about God tier philosophers, just after universal geniuses like Epicurus and Epictetus, is almost punishable ignorance.
>no Aristotle
Nice one, /his/.
>>327483
>Aristotle
you mean the guy who justified Columbus actions and centuries of women oppression? yeah, great philosopher.
>>327781
I am become bait, destroyer of threads
>>326054
>>326117
This desu.
>>327216
Any recommendations on which translation or annotated version to get?
REI
(Just kidding. He's demigod tier)
>>325580
How does physics explain the creation of matter and energy?
Where'd it come from?
>>328419
>creation of matter and energy?
Wat? Why would you think it was created? There is no evidence to support that
>>328423
If it was just always there? Wouldn't that make it the uncreated creator?
It can create consciousness within itself too, so I guess it's God.
Stoics: 1
Dawkins: 0
>>328423
>Why would you think it was created
Something had to make it at some point. Some set of processes.
It couldn't have just been there. How's it just going to be there?
>>328423
Wait till these Christians figure out that energy is nessary to perform all actions...including self-sustaining.
Hence God cannot exist before energy.
Even better wait till they learn energy and matter are actually the same thing and the whole universe is just one giant mass of energy.
>>328471
That doesn't really contradict Christendom in anyway.
As long as you're admitting there's an uncreated thing from which all things spring, you're not doing anything to theists. The Universe is conscious, at least parts of it are, and it's eternal, in that it is not being destroyed as it changes shape.
I mean, we know the Universe can create consciousness out of itself, and that it's probably not an uncommon occurrence in the universe.
>>328435
>Wouldn't that make it the uncreated creator?
Creator of WHAT?
>>328448
>How's it just going to be there?
Exactly like that. It just is. It is in its nature to exist. I'm not saying this is a fact but definitely a possibility
>>328522
Unshaped shaper then, whatever. It was always there, and it created you as you are now, because you created you and you're it.
>>328530
What about Space?
It has to expand into something.
>>328495
>The Universe is conscious, at least parts of it are
That's like saying people are invisible because their cells are.
>>328536
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/623-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into-intermediate
>>328548
No, I've read that, and it doesn't really answer anything for me.
Explain how it stretches.
>>328464
"Everyone is an asshole, so bring in the chains." - Hobbes
Nobody does statism like Hobbes.
>>328569
No one knows, one possibility is dark energy
Spinoza
Hume
Diogenes
Wittgenstein
Confucius
>>327168
my nigga
hume is a badass
epicurus is bulshit. eudomania belongs to the dead
>>326207
The one and only.
Why is Leibniz so based about everything? Even his choice of wig was God tier.
Can't cope with the Schope
>>325509
Whats the point in Philosophy? It has zero practical uses in real life.
>>328794
>Heretic and unironic monist
>Rather Based
>Based
>Circlejerker
>"wise-proverb"-tier
2/5 because I grant you Hume, can do better.
>>329753
>muh practical uses!!!
Your entire justice system is based on philosophy.
Democracy was invented by philosophy.
How's it feel being a glorified worker drone, STEMpleb?
>>329762
>"''''''''justice"""""" system
>"""""""""democracy"""""""""""
yeah......no
>>326142
>Taoism is a philosophy
>Taoism is not just shitty mysticism
Sure, whatever.
>>328228
Not him, but it's kind of pointless to read it. I read it too. It's not that it's hard to understand, it's just that it's meaningless. The base philosophy is intentionally shrouded in self-contradicting phrases and confusing metaphors. And that base philosophy is just mysticism - if you let go of attachment, if you forsake all action and desire, if you stop trying to learn and understand the world around you - if you become perfectly still, the Tao (which is never defined, explained, etc., it just hangs there in the air) will magically start to guide you, make you happy, a good person etc. Whatever is natural is good, therefore, return to nature. Basically, forsake humanity and become an animal, guided solely by instinct. It is the ultimate life-denying "philosophy".
>>325679
>>325856
>>326877
>>327168
>>328899
>>329769
All these too.
>>327475
Or obvious trolling.
>>328582
Leviathan is very well written to be honest family.
>>325509
>>330155
who are the chinks
Hannah Arendt.
>>330186
>>328582
You misunderstand him. What he said is that, in the natural state, each person follows his own desires, his own will. These will necessarily clash around desirable goods (material possessions, power, etc.), meaning a state of eternal war of all against all. To protect themselves from others, individuals form a society and choose a ruler. Then he deals with why it is necessary for a ruler to be absolute, with inheritance of power etc. Leviathan is a great work, to simplify it like this is pure folly.
