Most overrated philosophers in history?
>inb4 heidegger cause nazi
>>751669
I dunno, probably Kant. Descartes is also a little overrated.
>>751669
Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche.
Aquinas. Not because he's overrated, but because Catholics wont shut the fuck about his five >proofs.
>>752025
>guy proves God
>people still mad to this day
Aquinas' critiques on Aristotle are fucking fantastic though. And his theological work is great. While I think his five ways are a little basic, they only prove some sort of force or cosmic existence than they do the Christian God, they're still good. Except for one, can't remember for the life of me which though.
>'Rating' philosophers like you would a movie or restaurant
Stay pseud, plebs.
>>752083
Yeah, I meant to say, not because he's a bad philosopher, he was a fine philosopher, though I feel his work's potential was limited by being saddled with church doctrine.
His five proofs are all quite weak arguments that are easy to pick apart. Some would contend that they're only strong taken together, but I would contend that five weak arguments taken together just amounts to five weak arguments.
But the question of the thread is not "who is the worst philosopher" but a matter of who is overrated, which can only be relative to the fanfare they receive.
>>751669
Heidegger is pretty overrated imo and his Nazism is a part of that. But only because his philosophy guides him towards being naive and gullible. He realized that the Nazis weren't doing exactly what his philosophy wished and he had no idea how to react to it.
He basically said 'fuck it' but maintained that neither democracy nor communism could allow for the unconcealment of Being.
Max Scheler already BTFO'd both Nietzsche and Heidegger but I guess academics don't want their careers crushed so they ignore him.
>>752044
edgy, bet you wank over nietzsche
Wittgenstein is trash
>>752025
this, because he's another walled garden philosopher
>>752643
this
Is there anything in Nietzsche that isn't already in Callicles?
>>752661
Represent
>>752619
>Max Scheler already BTFO'd both Nietzsche and Heidegger but I guess academics don't want their careers crushed so they ignore him.
This mind of attitude is the wrong way to think about philosophy
>>751669
Hegel was a drunk German dilettant
>>752727
Nietzsche's critique of Christianity is moot when you read Scheler's critique of Nietzsche.
I think that would rustle a lot of jimmies right now.
>>752759
That isn't my point, though. I think Nietzsche lies at the root of the problem. It's basically an attitude resembling Hegelianism but without anything like reverence for philosophy and the subject matter. It goes beyond the postmodern disregard for truth. It's a choice to ignore epochs because new ideas destroy them somehow. The point of philosophy is not just to advance knowledge but to think along many paths, many of which lead nowhere. Modern academic philosophy is one such path without a destination. There's no reason to think it's actually superior to others unless you buy into positivist or pseudi-Nietzschean myths of progress that are, as I've said, nothing but Hegelianism without reverence for philosophy.
>>751669
Aquinas
>>751669
spinoza, marx, hegel
i wouldn't say nietzsche since his fans never actually read any of his writings. i wouldn't say any of the greeks are overrated either- they deserve all the credit given.
>>752619
give me some sort of example of how heidegger's philosophy is naive or gullible.
heidegger is only known in tight literary/philosophical circles, no public school or introductory philosphy class ever mentions his name. the majority of academics i've encountered are atheists, so they have never held heidegger in high esteem. i would say he is misunderstood and underrated, if anything.
>>752674
The problem of the "ascetic ideal" or "will to truth". Probably anything that was inspired by naturalism and modern science.
>>752894
I'd like to add Aristotle and Averroes to this. Almost all intellectual fraud in philosophy can be traced back to the teleological bullshit these three invented
>>753151
I think the OP premise is childish, most of the big names were intellectual giants, even more so if they survived the test of time. And no good critiques have been given so far. You ask about Heidegger specifically though, the common complaint about him might be that he is basically yet another counter-enlightenment figure (though that's only a problem if you're into classicism or the enlightenment).
>>752795
ignoring epochs is very unhegelian, Hegel says right in the preface to the phenomenology that this philosophy as a war of ideas conception is completely wrong.
>>753151
I'm sort of repeating Zizek's critique. Essentially, Heidegger's philosophy wants to move towards a kind of socialism but can't quite tell us anything about how that socialism should be organized.
He saw in Nazism the potential for his philosophy to spark a cultural revolution in Germany and in the world but then it turned out that they couldn't really do that according to his philosophy because they were basically doing the opposite of what he thought they would do.
He refused to apologize for Nazism (always still favoring it slightly) but also refuses liberal democracy and Marxism. What's left for Heidegger?
Heidegger is just pretty poetry and nothing more. The unconcealment of Being doesn't get us very far.
>>753158
have fun with Kant, Locke and Descartes.
>>753168
Ignore ressentiment posters.
Make an inference from their lack of knowledge to the psychological reasons for posting such things.
>>753176
>the only two things you can be are Marxist or a Nazi
God politics ruins fucking everything it touches
>>753182
All the politics "conceal Being" according to Heidegger. This is pretty big problem.
It's as much as a dead-end as is Adorno's philosophy. Yet they both hated each other's work yet ended up with similar conclusions, just proves how flawed both of them are.
Adorno can begin from a position that is forgetful of Being and end up saying the same thing about technology and pop culture as Heidegger. And Heidegger can begin from a position of 'the logic of the same' which will head towards disaster yet end up agreeing with Adorno.
>>753168
That's precisely my point
>>753194
It's only a problem because you fucking faggots take Slavoj Zizek to be an authority figure and take literal Communist propaganda meant to discredit Nazi discourse and Germany in general as actual critique of Heidegger.
You spend more of your post talking about Adorno than about Heidegger. It has little bearing on the topic.
>>753202
I'm neither Zizekian, nor Hegelian, nor Marxist. But what he's saying is accurate.
Don't support the Nazis and then act all surprised and butthurt when they like technology more than you do. It was there from the start and you're a dumbass not to see it.
Heidegger's philosophy amounts to Varg Vikernes youtube video on living a simple life. Which is fine, I'm not against it. But it's overrated as fuck when all academics think Heidegger is the final boss of philosophy.
He fucked up when he thought he could do better than Aristotle.
>>753202
Also, I'll add that Heidegger's philosophy is EXACTLY the same as Derrida's.
Not only that, but Heidegger, who didn't give a shit about any contemporary philosopher, really liked what he read of Derrida and tried to arrange a meeting between the two. Derrida chickened out and it never happened but Deconstruction is just Heidegger's de-struktion.
If you want Heidegger, you have to take Derrida. It's a package deal.
Not so cool of a Nazi anymore when his direct descendent's are Feminist Epistemologists, eh?
>Heidegger
>Nietzsche is not actually the overcoming of nihilism, he's just the completion of it, ya gotta know Being first :^)
>will to power and overman are metaphysical/otherworldly
>the true Nietzsche is not found in the published works ;)
>the Being, not becoming!
Heidegger is exactly the kind of obtuse German barrier to European enlightenment Nietzsche described past figures as being (right down to personal inclinations towards romantic nationalism nazi volk shit).
>>753253
Both are flawed but Heidegger has a really strong interpretation of Nietzsche.
Most who dismiss Heidegger do so because of the Nazism and they try, badly, to distance him from Nietzsche. You'd probably take Derrida as a good follower of Nietzsche but not Heidegger. Which is simply a bias.
Either take Nietzsche-Heidegger-Derrida-Butler or toss them all in the trash.
>>753266
>Both are flawed but Heidegger has a really strong interpretation of Nietzsche.
"popular" isn't the same thing as strong, and you'd know that if you read and understood the greentext you are replying to.
>Most who dismiss Heidegger do so because of the Nazism
Again, actually read what you reply to. The nazism is an afterthought near the end, and is obviously intended as imagery even for that point (there were anti-semites, romantics, nationalists, volk rabble uber alles way before NSDAP).
>and they try, badly, to distance him from Nietzsche.
Talk the philosophy, bitch.
>You'd probably take Derrida as a good follower of Nietzsche but not Heidegger. Which is simply a bias.
The greentext didn't mention Derrida. Plus, you seem to make a categorical error here. Derrida isn't a philosopher in the same sense as the other two, he is more like Marx in that he is primarily famous for creating a useful tool for critiquing things (including philosophy). That tool has even been used to negate aspects of phenomenology that Heidegger focuses on crucially (funnily enough the twin title of his book).
You further reveal yourself by being the first to mention Butler ITT (I think). Not in the greentext.
Either take Nietzsche-Heidegger-Derrida-Butler or toss them all in the trash.
Did Alex Kierkegaard arrest Heidegger for his rape of Nietzsche the same way Nietzsche arrested Kant for raping Hume?
The real answer is John Rawls
>>753346
I'm saying I personally believe Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche is very strong. I don't care about popularity. I don't know what this "reveal yourself" shit is. Wahtever.
I don't think Walter Kaufmann is very successful in countering Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche and I don't think Arendt can claim that the Nazism is a minor facet of Heidegger's philosophy.
And Derrida is doing nothing other than regurgitating Heidegger. If anything, he's more Heideggerian than Heidegger because he shows you how useless and junk Heidegger's philosophy really is.
You ought to skip Nietzsche and read Levinas.
>>753391
>I'm saying I personally believe Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche is very strong. I don't care about popularity. I don't know what this "reveal yourself" shit is. Wahtever.
I don't know what you mean by strong, but he is clearly anti-nietzsche on the latter's most important points.
>And Derrida is doing nothing other than regurgitating Heidegger. If anything, he's more Heideggerian than Heidegger because he shows you how useless and junk Heidegger's philosophy really is.
Bizarre logic. Derrida isn't even a phenomenologist unlike your Levinas.
>>753431
There's nothing in Derrida that wasn't first in Heidegger.
How can people deny this?
Were you also shocked to find out that Paul de Man was a Nazi sympathizer? It's all garbage, man.
If you want Nietzsche for anti-Christianity, you must also accept that he will eventually become anti-Jew (Heidegger).
>>753469
Nietzsche praised Judaism though, while he criticizes the religion at certain time periods. He also described himself as an anti-anti-semite.
All of the things that anti-semites criticize the Jews for (being successful, being cunning, willing to put their race and society ahead of others) are Ubermench traits, while the hatred of these traits is resentment.
>>752759
Not at all. Scheler is seriously overrated
>>753355
>Alex Kierkegaard
huh?
>>753567
The problem with Nietzsche is that his anti-anti-semitism is just his ambivalent relationship towards Wagner.
Were there no Wagner to insult both Jews and Nietzsche's ego he wouldn't have made those comments.
Heidegger is the one who gets closest to Nietzsche's return to pre-Socratic morality. And for that morality to exist, you need to get rid of Judeo-Christianity and Plato (in Nietzsche's words, 'that semite by instinct').
> for (being successful, being cunning, willing to put their race and society ahead of others) are Ubermench traits
That doesn't apply to the Nazis? Hegel had a much better understanding of conflict, as Right vs Right, two near equals exploding upon contact.
>>753710
icyclam
>>753355
>On Heidegger. Consider the fact that he began his book as a dissertation, and bothered to publish it only to get his degree — and thus start making money. The entire enterprise was motivated by nothing other than money (and this can be plainly seen in the text, even if one had not the slightest knowledge of the historical context of its creation). For after he began earning money he simply never bothered touching the work again. He made no move to finish it — or even simply to continue it. And here he doesn't have the excuse of other philosophers, who were still working when death found them. Heidegger had so much time after he gave up writing that he even became embroiled in politics — even politics attracted him more than his pathetic, botched attempts at philosophizing.
>>753768
>That doesn't apply to the Nazis?
It does, but this is also ignoring all the traits of the Nazism that is anti-Nietzchean. It's a nationalistic movement, nations are the new idol. Judaism is designed to serve the people, not the nation. That is why Judaism could survive for more than 2,000 years without a nation, while Nazism died the moment the nation fell.
So the Egoism of Judaism is self-serving which is the proper state of master morality. While the Egoism of Nazism ultimately differs to an 'other' in the form the nation.
Nationalism being put before the people is putting the horse before the carriage in Nietzsche's philosophy.
>>753219
>>753228
Not seeing a substantial engagement with Heidegger's philosophy, just the kind of dismissiveness I was talking about in my earlier post.
>Not so cool of a Nazi anymore when his direct descendent's are Feminist Epistemologists, eh?
I don't see why you think I'm some kind of Naziboo. If Heidegger and Derrida actually do have identical idea sets then why is Heidegger never referred to as a feminist epistemologist? And why should I bother caring about Derrida if I just prefer Heidegger over him? The answer is that 'BTFOing' someone is just one thing a philosopher does.
>>751669
Sartre.
>>753176
Zizek is a communist, which explains why he misunderstood heidegger and seizes an opportunity to elevate leftism.
Nazism accomplished everything a leftist civilization wishes it could have.
>>753932
But Jews literally consider themselves a "nation" rather than a race.
It's "the nation of Israel" chosen by G-d up against all the other nations. It's really similar and more Hegelian than Nietzschean.
>>757105
I'm not even a racist, or /pol/ posters, but plenty of jews believe they are a race.
One of my old flatmates who was a non-religious jew insisted they were, despite the fact he was ashkenazi and ethiopean jews exist.
It is an ethnically defined nation for many people, despite the fact that the jews are not a homogenous ethnic group.
Admittedly in scripture and for many less nationalistic jewish people it is a people, or even a religious nation, but there are many elements, generally in Israel, who believe jews are an ethnic nation.
This is why the forced sterilisation and generald discrimination of Ethiopian jews happens, because right wing jews hate the fact it defies the concept of a jewish ethnic group or race.
I don't know why it is, but if you look at Zionism it is actually very nationalist, it would almost appear as if Israeli's internalised the racial logic applied to them by the Nazi's.
I don't know who is overrated because I don't pay attention to other people's opinions of philosophers.
>>751669
Hegel.
>>757100
>Do you want me to write 40 pages?
Yeah, I'd like that, because I see no reason to take this claim seriously until you do. You'll have to do several things: support the claim that his critique of Aristotle offers nothing, demonstrate that a philosophy being unable to 'do what it wants to do' is even possible, and then show how you get from a failure to 'offer something' in a critique of Aristotle amounts to epistemological feminism and identity with Derrida's entire philosophy.
>>751669
Tommaso D'Aquino.
<-- This beta orbiter right here
