Tell me, without using memes, why this isn't the greatest philosopher since the classical times.
Nobody can because they haven't read him
Because Wittgenstein
It's obviously Descartes. Founder of modern philosophy, and creator of modern rationalism, the philosophical basis for the scientific method, which is the one objectively positive achievement of philosophy.
>>479646
Care to explain why W. was so great without exaggerating the significance of his achievements by making claims like 'Philosophy had nowhere to go when he published PI' or 'He proved that logic is a waste of time'? The historiography of Wittgenstein is actually atrocious.
>>479592
I can't because he is.
>>479654
Wittgenstein is a mental midget compared to Berty.
>>479664
>>479667
It's literally true. Do you really believe Wittgenstein outshines Russell's academic achievements, at any stretch of imagination?
>>479667
It's true. Russell invented symbolic logic and did a lot of significant math while Wittgenstein was busy playing music (was he even a good musician?) and beating up schoolkids to prove that language lackes inherent meaning. Russell may not have been correct about everything he said, but an awful lot of Wittgenstein is didactic insults thrown at strawman versions of other philosophers' concepts. Like an angry guy trying to be a Hegelian.
Both of them were into Hegel at one point or another, buy the way. Why do you think Russell insisted that particular and general statements were contradictory forms of speech?
Poor English men trying to force an English philosopher among the philosophical pantheon.
No English philosopher is greater than Kant or Descartes.
Too bad Hume was from Scotland.
>>479592
What did this guy even do in philosophy? A failed math "philosophy", some linguistic stuff that was largely BTFO by Witty? The only thing I've ever seen anyone talk about on /his/ are his criticisms of Christianity which isn't exactly ground-breaking
>>479592
Because Kripke exist. Both are very well reverse in logic, but Kripke had arguably an even bigger impact.
>>479592
Because Nietzsche told me that I could be the WARRIOR OF MY OWN DAYDREAMS
>>479699
>Russell may not have been correct about everything he said, but an awful lot of Wittgenstein is didactic insults thrown at strawman versions of other philosophers' concepts.
I've read PI and the Tractatus and I don't agree with this at all.
>>479592
Because he got BTFO by Gödel.
>>483518
But dat History of Western Philosophy... talk about a load of insults thrown at strawmen. My goodness Bertie.
>>479592
Because Principia Mathematica was utter shit, m8.
>>481187
>Bertrand Russell
>English
academia is now just a business to dupe nieve 20 somethings out of a lifetime of earning
pic related is greatist philosopher since classical times.
>>483546
Welsh, really.
Yeah, just look at this great 'philosophy'
If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either produce any argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? I am not thinking of political arguments. We can imagine them appearing before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and offering advice as to the sort of world He would create. What could either say?
Buddha would open the argument by speaking of lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love.
Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would burst out when his turn came.
"Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fibre. Why go about sniveling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals: I admire Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched psychopath."
Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity:
"You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quiet as much that is positive as it to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napoleon, I, too, have my heroes: my successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men that have ever lived."
"All the same," Nietzsche replies, "your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your truth, if you are honest, is unpleasant, and only to be known through suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we would all die of boredom." "You might," Buddha replies, "because you love pain, and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no one can be happy in the world as it is."
>>484172
>>484174
For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike him Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.
Taking the opportunity:
Can you direct me to starting the Russell's philosophy?
Thank you in advance.
>>479652
>being this much of a fedora
>>484602
>implying Descartes was an atheist
>>481187
This. Anglos consistently the worst in philosophy. Their shit is so dry, dispassionate and autistic, and it anticipates the current trend of fedora scientists thinking they have "disproven" philosophy. They are also worse in classical music than the German and the French. Final Solution to the Eternal Anglo Question when?
>>484994
Anglos are*
>>484994
This.
Never let an Anglo near "logic" or philosophy.
Absolutely disgusting, subhuman race.
It's NOT a coincidence that Russel got completely BTFO by Germans and Austrians.
No one who seriously studies philosophy is a positivist. Also no, it's not compatible with science, if you are a logical positivists you cannot believe in the scientific method. Postivism is self-refuting because it cannot justify itself. It also refutes the scientific method because the method cannot be proven empirically, only rationally.
Not only that but you cannot hold a single position in positivism. Wittgenstein showed us that language is entirly subjective, so statements cannot have inherit truth-values. This negates the positivists position of trying to turn all statements into binary true or false statements. Since all thoughts need to be expressed in language this pretty much locks the postivist out of speaking. For instance you could not even reply to this post using only true statements (or if you would like to try defining the truth value of each individual part of your sentence....which them-self need to have truth values explained with yet more language, an infinite cycle).
So in short positivism is a joke, only held by hypocritical stem-fags that don't want to actually learn philosophy. Even the philosophers that went down the path ended up just refuting their own ideas, such as how Wittgenstein ended up showing his idea of atomic facts is nonsense.
Russel spent his entire career, several decades and working with multiple other people, to try to prove that 1+1=2 using hardcore logic: empiricism™ only, no items, final destination. Russel failed, he discovered his famous Russel's paradox and realized any proof he made is going to be self-referencing. Because any proof is going to be self-referencing you cannot have empirical proofs for anything, there must always be a rationalism aspect to affirm at least one part.
His pupil Wittgenstein provided a proof for 1+1=2 with a simple example "here is a hand. here is my other hand. That's two hands" Wittgenstein spent about 5 seconds of this compared to the years of time Russel had wasted on his autism.
>>484994
>Anglos consistently the worst in philosophy
That's because what they are doing isn't philosophy, it's math, so they had to invent logicism to convince people that what they were doing was philosophy.
>>485574
Unfortunately they didn't accomplish jackshit in math either.
>>485568
This post is so retarded it's actually quite sad.
>>485592
Cry more anglocuck
>>479592
His life's work got annihilated in his lifetime
The Russell paradox was hardly as significant as it's made out to be
His pop philosophy work is supremely unfair and mischaracterizes many philosophers
He quit doing logic because of Wittgenstein's work
He had very few insights into mathematical philosophy, he more compiled the thoughts of previous mathematicians
He was a pacifist
He let his wife sleep around
What else do you need?
>>485568
good post
>>484994
>who is Hume
I agree that Anglos produced many tards, but Hume and his friend Adam Smith are top tier
>>485616
Hume was a Scott. But I agree that the enlightenment philosophers are often ignored when people attack the analytic school and its anglo roots.
>>485616
>not mentioning fucking John Stuart Mill
>>485568
Yup. Anyone who isn't an intuitionist about mathematics hasn't considered the problem deeply enough.
Numbers represent two basic things. They represent quantities or distances. We designed natural numbers to represent intuitions about counting and fields represent distances.
Trying to find these intuitions in logic is misplaced. They're immediated in our senses.
>>485673
>Utilitarianism is a shit tier ethics
nah
Wittgenstein basically forced Russel to quit philosophy.
.
.
.
I'm memeing by the way.
>>485602
1. WW2 started because of him
2. He was in an open relationship and fucked tonnnes of women and let his wife do the same so she didn't bitch at him
There are no great philosophers since the classical times.
>>485879
>There are no great philosophers since the classical times.
