Who's your favorite philosopher, legbutt?
If you don't read philosophy, why?
I never have because I have never felt interested or felt it a necessity.
>>6328344
>Interested
Fair enough
>Necessary
Do you just not run into morally-grey situations you need to figure out, or do you base your morality on religion/etc?
>>6328355
When in doubt I flip a coin
>>6328367
That's a good way to go about it. I fully support you in this approach to life.
>If you don't read philosophy, why?
I barely read anything because I'm a stupid fuck.
>>6328338
Nietzsche, far and away.
Hard to say who comes after that though. Zizek is great for obvious reasons, but he's more of a philosophy-themed comedian than a philosopher (I have skimmed his more "serious" books, but they seem to be mostly summaries of what other people have said...). I've been on a bit of a Derrida kick lately, but frankly I'm still not sure if he's a charlatan or not. I think I would like Lacan a lot but I've never really delved into his work. Most of my actual positions come from the contemporary analytic literature, but it's hard to point to a single author or authors that I really like because of the analytic emphasis on disassociating arguments from their authors. I've liked some of David Lewis's stuff. Peter Unger is pretty cool for his defense of mereological nihilism. Ross and Ladyman seem to have good heads on their shoulders.
>>6328344
There's nothing more intellectually humbling than studying philosophy. When you realize that most of what you've believed throughout your life has been wrong, and even the simplest of questions can conceal dizzying levels of complexity just beneath the surface, you become much more tolerant and patient when you have to consider strange ideas or opinions you disagree with. Often times, people defend academic pursuits by saying that they make you a better person, and that's usually bullshit. But studying philosophy really does make you a better person.
>>6328355
>morally-grey
There are really people in this world who can't make up their minds on shit like that? While I can't make my mind up on some political shit I don't think reading a book would help me.
>>6328476
I have to confess to not having read much of Nietzsche, though I have of course heard a great deal of him due to him being so important and prominent. I feel that the ideas at the heart of nihilism - the rejection of the possibility of moral facts (and facts in general, though the latter can't actually impact our daily decision making process so it is usually theoretical) is right and important, but then he goes ahead and tries to prescribe a bunch of things people ought do which is just puzzling given his previous statements. The whole ubermensch line of thought feels like a non-sequitur.
>>6328338
Albert Camus because I want to kill myself so often that I have to go back to his writings in order to persuade myself that suicide is folly.
>>6328476
Agreeing with this anon, Zizek is great.
My personal favorite philosopher is Albert Camus, though.
>>6328542
>but then he goes ahead and tries to prescribe a bunch of things people ought do which is just puzzling given his previous statements.
Well, he doesn't think any of his prescriptions carry objective normative force. That doesn't mean he can't describe a vision of life that he hopes you find enticing though.
It's like if you asked your friend to go on a vacation with you and he said "it's weird that you're saying that, because objectively, I'm not morally required to do anything". You would just say "uh... well I didn't mean it like that."
>The whole ubermensch line of thought feels like a non-sequitur
The concept of the ubermensch literally appears for about one page in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and then it doesn't appear anywhere else in his corpus ever again. The fact that the ubermensch is the first thing that people think of when they think of Nietzsche just goes to show you how shit the secondary literature (not to mention the pop literature) on Nietzsche is. There's nothing that compares to his books themselves.
>>6328589
Yeah, that's fair. My response is probably down to my lack of direct familiarity with him.
>>6328476
>There's nothing more intellectually humbling than studying philosophy.
I am talking to the man who has tried everything
>>6328476
I don't know by what measure I become 'better'. I just am, I do what gets me by and I'm happy. Like I said maybe a hard choice comes by and if I don't have an immediate answer I let chance take care of it and move on to the next thing.
Maybe I don't need it, my life isn't too complicated and honestly once this year ends I'm probably going a full year before talking in person with another human being. (it's a work thing)
>>6328338
Kant
>>6328632
The number one philosopher among lesbians.
>>6328338
>no Hegel, Kierkegaard, or Dostoyevsky itt
Smh desu
>>6328338
I'm much more driven in my tastes by the philosophers I hate than by those I like, because usually I only subscribe parts of their views.
I balk at any sort of idealism or attempts at overcomplicating/obscuring stuff
I also take exception to most philosophy based on theology.
One of philosophy's task is GETTING RID of bullshit, rather than producing it.
Shit I like... Democritus, Leibniz (bullshitty but nice), Kierkegaard (too much of a christfag, but actually clever as fuck), Aristotle.
Shit I hate: Plato, Hegel, german idealism in general; Heidegger (I despise him to no end and would gleefully treat him to bibliocaust and damnatio memoriae)
french philosophers wank too much over words but still better than germans
UK philosophers seem to be... mostly in their right minds, actually.
My country is ass backwards for some shit and I have no freaking idea about current philosophy (except philosophy of mind/biology/sciences books where I don't care so much about the author but rather the fields themselves)
TL; DR: I like philosophy of science and hate german philosophers with the burning of a thousand suns
>>6328662
I want to like Kierkegaard because Father of Existentialism but I'm emotionally at MAX_ATHEISM so I can't tolerate him.
>>6328542
Nietzsche explicitly rejected nihilism, he just didn't accept meaning where most people found it (through morality)
>>6328674
Well the single one thing that gave me a boner over him as that the way he explain thinks he must have had brainpower >9000 ... a different thing is wtf did he decide to do with it.
Kierkegard: love teh brainz, 100% couldn't care less about what he actually says.
>>6328666
>hates german idealism
>like britbong philosopher
Autistic analytic detected
>>6328595
No worries. Those are both really common issues that people raise.
>>6328597
You sure are friend!
>>6328666
How come you don't like Heidegger? I feel like I would like him for some reason, but Being and Time is just so dense. I feel like he might be way overestimating the actual metaphysical implications of his arguments and I don't want to get to the end of the book and discover that it was all a waste.
Studying XVIII - XIX centuries aesthetics/philosophy of art right now, it's
SO MUCH BULLSHIT AND WANKING
>>6328700
I'm not analytic by choice. In fact, I'm not even into analytic philosophy.
It's germanophiles' BULLSHIT that made me like this.
I'm going for a kehre through the küche and see if there are any kartoffeln left, you can keep wanking over the ursprung of geisteswissenschaften as a step in the dialectic unveiling of the dasein's will-to-will.
I seriously can't be arsed to.
>>6328645
but i'm not a lesbian
>>6328762
Anon if I explain the joke it'll kill it.
>>6328704
>How come you don't like Heidegger?
Oh boy.
1-Impossible to read.
2-avowedly obscure and elitist*
3-twists older philosopher's sayings to mean whatever the fick he goddamn wants to*
4-intent on substituting every single term with vernacular germanisms (see 6)
4.5--yes-men followers who parrot them with anal retentiveness surpassing that of the worst TV stereotypes for OCD
5-actually admits in writing that his philosophy goes no fucking where*
6-fucking nazi (see 4)
* all of this in the Letter on Humanism, of which only a few central pages actually make any sort of sense, where he actually spells out for you what amounts to "I'm a troll, all of this is useless and I don't actually want people to understand it"
>>6328750
A rich Arab man commissions a Briton, a Frenchman, and a German to write a treatise on his favorite camel.
The Frenchman travels to the Arab man's palace and writes a short erotic story about taking the camel for a ride through the desert at night and happening upon a beautiful woman.
The Briton travels to the Arab man's palace and writes a scientific paper on the camel's digestive tract.
The German stays home and writes a 600 page book called "The Spirit of Camel-ness and its Dialectical Confrontation with World History".
>>6328809
Niiiiiice.
>>6328750
>can't even into dialectics
John-Stuart Mill; because I'm a shameless utilitarian.
>>6329042
I always felt like a fake utilitarian. I make my decisions in the exact same fashion 99% of the time but in the end if one person's convictions matched my morality but would upset the rest of the planet I gotta side with that one person.
>>6328787
Oh fuck. I'm sorry anon, I didn't know…
I haven't read enough to have a favorite. I'm not really interested in reading more because I already have my own ethics and don't feel the need to compare.
my favorite philosopher is diogenes.
he will fearlessly & competently challenge anything w/o using the socratic method
>diogenes overhears a bunch of greek math pedants postulate that motion is impossible
>diogenes stands up & walks away
>hears a description of men as bald bipods
>pluck the feathers from a chicken, "behold! a man!"
>alexander the great offers literally anything
>diogenes wants alexander to stop blocking his sun
truly a paragon
>>6329316
Anon, it's ok that you're not smart enough to understand it
>>6328338
Socrates.
>>6329349
If that's the cause I'm happy beyond words to be stupid.
Because to start understanding germanophile bullshit I'd have to stop understanding everything else, and guess what's more important than germanophile bulshit? Anything else.
In fact, it's not so much "german thinkers"; it's merely germanophile wankers. The two big Hs and their cohorts.
Enjoy your delusions of legitimacy
>>6329349
>>6328338
Actually I just recalled that Kuhn and Feyerabend were pretty cool.
>>6329410
oh god I loved this shit, oglaf rules
>>6329408
At least you accept you stupidity
>>6329438
Look, I'm tired of being a triggered asshole about all this inane bullshit.
I really shouldn't gaf about what you read or think.
I like Kant and Nietzsche.
>>6329500
Kool senpai. Let's talk about Kierkegaard then
>>6328476
Came in here to post basically those philosophes, so good job on liking what I like I guess :)
>>6328589
>The concept of the ubermensch literally appears for about one page in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and then it doesn't appear anywhere else in his corpus ever again.
I dunno man, Gay Science implied it without using the term. So does a lot of his stuff. I'd say you can trace the idea back to the On the Genealogy of Morality, with the ubermench the end that everything he's written leads up to.
>>6329341
Diogenes was a robot. I'm pretty sure he also lived in a barrel
>>6328338
i never read other peoples philosophy. if those guys could come up with their own perspectives than so can i
>>6330550
That's sort of like saying "I never read other people's science. If those guys could come up with their own theories then so can I."
It's simply not possible to reproduce thousands of years of work done by thousands of people all on your own. If you don't read past philosophers, you'll end up making the same mistakes they did.
I'd add something like "but you're not a professional philosopher so it doesn't matter anyway," but actually it does matter. It's absurd to think that people can be informed, participating citizens in a democracy without knowing the basics of philosophy.
>>6329510
Enlighten me. I remember next to nothing.
>>6330596
Uhm, well, you know, most of scientificking requires a lot more thingamajigs to work with that any sort of philosophizing
Your argument is valid but much weaker in the case of philosophy. And a lot of philosophical problems come kinda naturally to the human mind - solipsism, political realism, utilitarism, physicalism, dualism, are off the top of my head ideas that any talking ape could probably reach unaided given a penchant for thinking hard and a social context.
Granted, there must be some "scientificking insights" reachable with the same means. Also the relationships and history between sciences and philosophy.
(Not to be taken as an argument pro innatism)
Also, philosophy is actually the basis for a lot of shit, it's just that it's not viewed in that ligh by the common mortal.
Foucault. Only cause I want him to rub his bald head on my feminine penis
>>6328338
i'm not first poster, but it's not necessary for the benefit of those who surround me. my nature is geared towards harm reduction.
grey situations are reduced to a simple decisions of what can i do to flip the situation around or the choice which reduces more harm in the long run.
philosophy is simply junkfood for the well intentioned
Nabokov
>>6330843
I read the Myth of Sisyphus last week and immediately read Camus' The Outsider the next day. Would recommend as a next step. It's like his philosophy poured into fiction. Perfect follow-up.
>>6329069
To be fair, utilitarianism makes a hell of a lot more sense from an economics perspective than a purely philosophical perspective...probably because I studied economics, so...
If I go purely philosophical, I occasionally borrow from Kant.
