Discuss
>>8014847
This seems all sorts of b8
>>8014847
>Marx and Nietzsche so low
>Proudhon so high
Nigga no one knows who the fuck Proudhon is
This has to be bait.
>>8014866
it's about the depth of the philosophy, not how obscure the philosopher is
>>8014847
>marx not at the tippy-top of the peak
>>8014847
>Plato, Descartes, and Machiavelli above water
>Foucault and Derrida in the top ten
Good one, OP
>>8014847
I don't know if I agree at all, but this might get more people to read Blanchot which is cool, so, sure w/e.
>spinoza at the surface
>plato and socrates are separate
i don't even know why im replying
>>8014906
Are there any good compilations of his works that you can recommend?
>>8014847
Meh. I'll take rigor over "depth" any day.
>>8014925
Why don't you just become a STEM major while you're at it if you only care about methodical "facts" that require minimal deep, truly-critical thought?
>>8014930
i like the way stemfag is an insult here
>>8014930
Said the obviously innumerate.
>>8014847
>Marx, Zizek, Sartre, Lacan, Nietzche all that deep
>Schopenhauer and Kant that shallow
>>8014944
You couldn't even count the neurons that compose my mind, let alone the thoughts that commute through them.
>>8014949
I can count to 2, anon.
>>8014847
woah...really makes u think...
>>8014947
Schopenhauer would be deservedly shallow on any more accurate graph
remember guys,
this chart is completely objective.
>Sellars nearly at the top of the iceberg
God, I hate you
Sage
>>8014880
H E L P
>>8014847
>Kierkegaard
>Deep
Nigga, I love me some Kierkegaard. But he's not particularly hard to read, at all.
>Plato and Socrates
>As if they were different people
Excellent bait. Soon you will be ready to move beyond template bait and be able to craft bait all of your own.
>>8014994
it's not about how hard he is about how deep he is.
>>8014954
hahahaaa
ooo
brutal
>>8014954
ZING
>Guattari above Deleuze
???????????
anyway he's absolutely not top 3 deepest but I do recommend everyone read some Levinas
>>8014954
SAVAGE
L Ron Hubbard
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
lol why are all the 20th cent analytics in a single band
>>8014954
>>8014997
WARNING RETRO MEME AHEAD WARNINGthat's what she said
Fucking LOL at Marx being considered "deep."
Even bigger LOL at Plato above water, Aristotle slightly below, and Socrates half way down.
>Plato and Socrates not at exactly the same level
>Plato and Socrates not listed as Socrates/Plato
>>8015024
imaging believing that you can't separate Plato and Socrates in the 21st century still
>>8014847
Fucking painful, but here, have a (you).
>>8014847
Terence Mckenna deserves to be way deeper senpai.
>>8015073
FUCK OFF JUNKIE DEGENERATE
/LIT/ IS AN xXxSTRAIGHTEDGExXx BOARD.
>>8014847
>Foucalt in the deepest end
Wew, more like derpest end desu senpai
>>8015028
You're a fucking retard if you think there is any significant difference between the two.
>>8015083
if you are trying to make fun of people who don't do drugs you are failing miserably
>>8015106
Fuck you, druggie.
>putting the philosopher of surfaces that deep (Baudrillard)
>Sartre deeper than Marx
you fucking troglodyte
Is there a similar chart for authors?
>>8014954
BTFO
>>8015133
Actually, I'm dead serious. Druggie degenerates have no place on /lit/. If you use or have used recreational drugs or mind-altering pharmaceuticals you should seriously and sincerely consider suicide. Your addictions will only get worse until you are forced to steal or murder to sustain them; I, and most other rational, drug-free, people urge those who use drugs to kill themselves.
>>8014847
Kirkegaard, Foucault, Heidegger and Derrida are as basic as they get
>>8015137
>forced to murder
2/10
leave that out next time its too obvious
>>8014847
some people above the water have nearly the same philosophy as people at the very bottom
>>8014907
thanks for the bump. keep it up
>>8015138
depth of readers does not equal depth of thought
>>8015143
Fact: Drugs are addictive.
Fact: Addicted people will go to desperate lengths to satisfy their addictions.
Fact: This includes theft.
Fact: Druggies are stupid.
Fact: A druggie will, therefore, be compelled to steal even when he knows that the owner is present.
Fact: This will result in an altercation.
Fact: Drugs make you violent.
Fact: If the druggie is still physically capable of violence this will potentially result in a murder.
Therefore, a druggie is willing (and potentially) able to murder to sustain its addiction. As a consequence it is the duty of all rational and self-preserving drug-free individuals to urge druggies to commit suicide before this chain of events inevitably happens. If said druggie is unwilling to do so it becomes the duty of the state to euthanize druggie degenerate to preserve the life of peaceful non-druggies.
>Deleuze and Guattari not at rock bottom
Read A Thousand Plateaus and get back to me. Jesus tap dancing christ.
>>8015155
> Being too Western washed to appreciate Eastern and shamanic philosophies.
Terrence and his lesser known brother, Paul, have begun the decisive bridging between Western, Eastern, and shamanic philosophies with postmodern eyes. McKenna is hardly a drug addict.
>>8015155
>Drugs are addictive
Found your faulty premise.
>>8015178
>Yo maan it's just a plant, like, totally not addictive bro. I could stop any time I want maan. Just not today. Or tomorrow.
Kill yourself.
t. Rational, kind, sane and non-drug-addled people everywhere.
>>8015155
Those are generalizations that just can't be facts because exceptions exist.
Your whole argument is a huge non-sequitur.
>>8015188
Refute one of them, then. I'll be waiting.
That is if you can stop hitting the pipe for 5 minutes and form a logical conscious thought for once in your life.
Face it: The drugs are destroying your mind and body and you will never be free from them unless you either turn yourself in to the police or commit suicide.
>>8014847
ooo derrida, weil, and big K all on bots. Nice.
>>8015185
I know tons of people who have quit pot at the drop of a hat because they wanted to be clean for drug tests. It's also nearly impossible to get addicted to other drugs, like LSD, due to increasing tolerance.
>>8015202
Wow that's a sweet anecdote you have there. I personally know, and know of, thousands of stoner degenerates who completely wasted their lives on the drug before letting their addictions get the better of them and resorting to theft, and indeed murder, to sustain them.
>>8015202
>It's also nearly impossible to get addicted to other drugs
>due to increasing tolerance.
>>8015207
Lol ok. I see you're just memeing me. Good one, anon.
>>8014847
I hate leftists
I've never seen a thread derailed in so baffling a way
>>8015210
Don't think about it too much. The mind of a druggie is warped and degenerated to a point where our common notions of 'logic' and 'rationality simply no longer apply. Instead urge them to seek help, by turning themselves in, or commit suicide for the good of the community.
>>8014847
>Blanchot the most difficult whereas someone like Whitehead is half way
Agree with the other anon here who are calling bait - it's just too obvious.
>>8015210
I take it you've never done any of them. I took pretty good doses of LSD on two consecutive nights. The second time I didn't even get a hint of a high due to tolerance. To trip back to back you have to rapidly increase the dose. Most people just do it once and then wait a few weeks or even months. That's how it works, anon. Look it up. Better yet, give it a try.
>>8015224
Since when was LSD the topic here? You're just cherrypicking now.
>>8015224
This is very different. Try sometime like heroin. You just keep upping the dose just to not feel like shit; it's not even about the high anymore.
>>8015241
Don't think about it too much. The mind of a druggie is warped and degenerated to a point where our common notions of 'logic' and 'rationality simply no longer apply. Instead urge them to seek help, by turning themselves in, or commit suicide for the good of the community.
>>8015241
The implication is that the OP dropped a lot of acid and just started frantically throwing random names onto a diagram of an iceberg.
>>8015196
>Refute one of them, then.
This is literally a trivial task. All you have to do is imagine a scenario where somebody tries some drug. After trying it he decides not to try it again. And so he doesn't. And so the addition doesn't set in. Several decades later he dies not having tried the drug for the second time.
There are thousands if not millions people like this. The descriptions of the details of course vary.
Drugs aren't addictive per se. There's no magical, empirically observable property that we call "addictive". Drugs have physical, and only physical, properties. What makes something addictive--that is to suggest that not only drugs can be found in the domain of addictive things--is not the thing itself but how many times you're willing to try it again after your first. At a certain point addiction kicks in. This could be applied to things like "I wonder how it would feel whipping my ass with my left hand" too. You're curious, you try it, and if you like it, you might do it again. Do it several times in a row and you've managed to develop an addiction (= a word synonymous to "habit", with a negative connotation added to it) to whipping your ass with your left hand.
Despite its simplicity, Bishop Berkeley has one of the deepest philosophies, especially if you substitute God for "creative force" or something less theistic.
>>8015255
>After trying it he decides not to try it again. And so he doesn't.
False premise. Drugs are addictive, ergo, try drugs once and you will be addicted.
You can be an addict even if you don't use drugs - it only takes one dose.
>>8015241
>>8015243
For the record, I'm none of the anon's prior to the post claiming drugs aren't addictive.
I'm just saying that some drugs can be done in moderation without making one a "degenerate." I wouldn't ever endorse the use of heroin or meth. Those are straight up toxic. Pot, psychedelics, alcohol, and hallucinogens can be safely and responsibly used. Hell, even things like MDMA or coke can be used safely. MDMA much more than coke, obviously. Some just require a stronger resolve not to let it get out of hand. I've done most things at least once or twice (never meth and never heroin) and never had a problem. I've seen plenty of people go off the deep end with coke and amphetamines but just as many kept them relegated to "party" drugs. I've even seen one dude destroy his life because he was unwilling to act like an adult and insisted on just being a pot smoking alcoholic. I've never seen anyone get fucked by psychedelics or hallucinogens except when the law fucks them.
>>8015258
"I refute it thus!"
>>8015263
>False premise
You can't evaluate the truth-value of a statement if you don't know who I am referring to (to whom was I referring to by "he"?).
In any case, since I had no concrete statistics with me, I made an an argument from possibility, even though the scenario that I described is all too common in the real world and that asking for statistics here would be like asking statistics for other commonsensical shit.
>Drugs are addictive, ergo, try drugs once and you will be addicted.
You're begging the question. Your conclusion is just a different paraphrase of your premise. To prove that drugs are addictive you need other kind of premises. Plus, the premise is false: I once tried smoking both cigarettes and pot but never developed an addition to either. There, a single counterexample that's good enough to falsify a universally quantified statement.
>You can be an addict even if you don't use drugs - it only takes one dose.
>You can be smart even if you don't read books - it only takes one book.
Just stop.
>>8015185
>maybe if I call myself rational, people will think I am
>deconstructionists
>deep
holy shit, i didn't except so many replies, virtually all just insulting others without any evidence
>>8015605
shut up idiot your mom has multiple sclerosis
>>8015605
Wait, how many replies did you except? I think they should all be included, personally.
>>8014847
Yeah I agree, Continental philosophers certainly did go off the deep end.
>>8015650
like 5
>>8014847
Tip top of the ice berg
Marx
Plato
Zizek
Derride
Foucault
Marcuse
Deepest depths of the ocean:
Popper
Evola
Aron
>>8015685
>Deepest depths of the ocean:
>Popper
hahahaha
>Evola
hahahahahahahahaha
reminder that no one in the philosophy of science buys falsification even as a general guideline
>>8015255
>There's no magical, empirically observable property that we call "addictive". Drugs have physical, and only physical, properties.
Are you aware that physical addiction is a real thing, along with physical withdrawal?
Benzodiazepine withdrawal can be deadly. Opiate withdrawal will give you crushing depression and severe flu-like symptoms.
>>8015658
Bad pun go rot in reddit
>>8015702
Reminder that the only reason people get butt frustrated at falsification theory is because they applied falsification theory to falsification theory. And the only reason academics dismiss Popper is because he shat on the continental Marxist circlejerk.
>>8015702
>no one in the philosophy of science buys falsification even as a general guideline
How do you think science works?
I am willing to bet that the anti drug people in this thread drink alcohol an addictive psychoactive substance and still think they are drug free.
>>8014847
As a grad student in phil I can say anyone who thinks they know enough about philosophy to make this list needs to do there homework.
>>8015713
>And the only reason academics dismiss Popper is because he shat on the continental Marxist circlejerk.
anyone working in marxist thought ought to dismiss popper because he had literally no authority to say anything whatsoever about marxism besides ideological shit flinging. philosophers of science dismiss popper for reasons you really ought to know, so I'll just rattle off: Duhem, Hanson, Lakatos, etc
>>8015746
puzzle-solving within something-less-than-incommensurable paradigms
>>8015776
>As a grad student in phil
>there homework
This is why we're fucked, family.
>>8015809
>no authority to say anything whatsoever about marxism
Top kek m8. Marxists get so defensive when somebody calls out their naive idealism. Apparently you need to be a Marxist to critique Marxist thought.
Again, his critics are 90% assravaged continental pseuds who have been insulated from reality within the ivory tower.
>>8015827
>Top kek m8. Marxists get so defensive when somebody calls out their naive idealism. Apparently you need to be a Marxist to critique Marxist thought.
no, you need to have a philosophical framework that can adequately describe the social sciences. Popper has nothing like that,
>Again, his critics are 90% assravaged continental pseuds who have been insulated from reality within the ivory tower.
wow who was it again that has been insulated from reality?
>>8015776
why
>>8015809
Also, falsification is just a small bit of what popper contributed to contemporary philosophy, and it's STILL more concrete than most of Marx's anti-intellectual nonsense like the LTV, historical materialism, and his class theories.
Popper just didn't fall in line with the rest of the pseuds at the ecole normale.
>>8014954
ouch
>>8015849
what was wrong with historical materialism, and class theories?
>>8015849
falsification is his main tool in criticizing marxism and is the only reason you ideologist pseuds care about him and feel the need to only bring him up in connection to marx or continental philosophy. its not a defensible approach to the natural sciences let alone something like marxism. continue being a blindly accepting contrarian though
>>8015855
His classification is just retarded. A business owner who could be homeless would be bourgerois while a tech worker making 300k is proletariat. Not to mention he stole the word bourgeois because its original definition perfectly described him and his peers.
Historical materialism is a very narrow lense of analysis and the "means of production" is a very vague idea.
>>8015861
>falsification is his main tool in criticizing marxism
Except that's not true at all.
>>8015865
actually, i don't see how the tech worker, that's making 300k a year, is a proletariat, or how'd it even be possible for a business owner that's homeless to be a bourgeois. don't you see how those are completely absurd, almost contradictions?
and why is it narrow?
Is there a bigger pseud than Derrida?
It seems like all of his ideas are very weak or self-evident, and his writings are just deliberately obfuscated to the maximum degree to trick people into thinking his ideas are complex.
>>8015865
>His classification is just retarded. A business owner who could be homeless would be bourgerois while a tech worker making 300k is proletariat.
I don't even get the sense you read a wikipedia article on marx, let alone marx, let alone anyone who followed him. jesus fucking christ.
>Historical materialism is a very narrow lense of analysis
ideas are historically and materially produced yeah thats very restrictive
> and the "means of production" is a very vague idea.
maybe if you've never read what it is. he carefully and particularly explains, with countless examples, what the means of production is.
>>8015875
it's p clear he hasn't read marx to think that a 300k/year individual could possibly be a proletariat. can you imagine thinking marx genuinely believed this? or this somehow just gives someone reason to dismiss marxism?
>>8014847
>Sartre that low
thanks for trolling me
>>8015873
>i don't see how the tech worker, that's making 300k a year, is a proletariat,
He doesn't own shit. He's employed, he has bosses.
>or how'd it even be possible for a business owner that's homeless to be a bourgeois
He owns all the means of production at his business.
>how is it narrow
Base/superstructure ignores all other classes and basically tries to pidgeonhole everyone into "underdog good guys" and "evil fat cats"
His definition of capitalism is also very eurocentric and historically ignorant. Capitalism predates great britain as a nation.
>>8015889
who owns the means of production
>>8015875
>ideas are historically and materially produced yeah thats very restrictive
that's not really the full picture
according to marx, capitalism should have long been overthrown worldwide as communism succeeded it
his predictions were empirically wrong and his concept of "historical materialism", beyond the basic assumptions which weren't novel, is falsifiable
>>8015705
>something is addictive
But that just means that you liked your first try and want more.
>physical withdrawal
It's a side-effect of using drugs, yes, but doesn't necessarily make you an addict. Plus, not all drugs have physical withdrawal/lead to addition of that drug upon trying it for the first time. This is my point. It should be clear by definition that one time isn't nearly enough for all drug-uses for your brain chemistry to change to an addict-like brain. There's a potential there, of course, but not if you stop taking the drug. In that way, you don't let your brain chemistry degenerate any further.
This is like really simple stuff; then again, I'm just concerned about semantics here--I want to pin down what exactly do we mean by 'addiction', 'drugs are addictive', 'physical addiction', etc.
>>8014954
rekt
>>8014954
Damn
>>8014847
global warming. omg I'm so edgy.
>>8014847
TOP LEL!!
>Averroes should be way in the deep end.
>>8014847
I'm no a big fan of Watts, but I don't think he is pleb tier. Some random people watching youtube vids related to him doesn't make him "pleb tier" since his works are pretty ok in general.
>>8016918
not a big fan*
>>8014847
>anyone deeper than Heidegger
>>8014847
Blanchot wasn't deep, he was an obscurantist who got blown out by Cioran. Fuck your chart.
Can anyone link me the starting with the greeks guide pls?
>>8015196
I did heroin one time and have no intention of doing it again
>>8014954
I'll see you all on r/4chan.
>Hegel not at the Earth's core
