Is this accurate?
No it's pretty meaningless because it's impossible to discern the underlying principles even when you're more-or-less familiar with all the names, and too many things seem like joke inclusions
Some things are neat like Eckhart being up top but Diogenes, Muhammad, and the Easterners make it seem like a joke, among others. A lot of the inclusions in general seem arbitrary when not accompanied by other obvious ones.
Interesting to see a lot of (these days) less-typical names on there from occultism, mysticism, and philosophy, but other than that pretty meaningless
>>8195652
>Muhammad
>God Tier
>Schopenhauer
>Not God Tier
>Marx
>Anything but shit tier
>Le sniffing Slovenian, Jean-Paul "Googly-Eyes" Sartre, Gramsci, Adorno
>Good tier/Above Poor Tier
>Evola
>Poor tier
Those are all the unforgivable classifications jumping out at me
>Jesus
>Muhammad
>god tier
why tho
>>8195652
>Jesus
>Hegel
>Marx
>God tier
Back to the drawing board
>Baudrillard in good tier
>Popper is shit tier
Its shit. Only redeeming quality is Dennett at poor tier.
>Plato not in Plato tier above all else
>people on this board thinking they can critique marx
>people thinking disregarding the category of ideology makes it go away
hoo boy
>be Frege
>invent First-Order Logic that is the engine of all modern mathematics, single-handedly revolutionze philosophy by introducing analytic philosophy
>get put in the 'poor' tier by a anonymous poster on an anonymous Chinese image board
>"Is this accurate?"
>>8195679
>Plato
>Not in Boring tier
>>8195652
In regard to influence?
In regard to solid arguments?
In regard to style?
In regard to farsightedness?
In regard to ethical approach?
Stop throwing names in the air it's like you just don't...
>>8195652
>implying Feyerabend was anything but a complete pseud hack
>>8195666
maybe they were going for a more literal interpretation of "god-tier"
also satanic trips check'd
>>8195652
>>8195652
>Is this accurate?
very roughly yes.
>>8195652
>Singer
>shit
the idea that somebody actually read even some of the works of each of the people on this list and came out of it with enough stupidity intact to consider this "tier" bullshit a valuable exercise makes me want to lie down and never get up again
>Fichte
>shit tier
Kill urself my man
A lot of it is pretty accurate.
I'd contest Wittgenstein being that high.
PUT KIERKEGAARD IN GOD YOU PLEB.
Young Marx is a bit of a wanker, would only put in Good.
Lao Tzu can die in a hole, frankly.
Freud is not up that high.
>Evola
>not shit
>Beauvoir
>Poor
>Kropotkin
>not Good
All analytic philosophers except John Gray and David Benatar deserve to be in shit tier.
>>8195652
>Freud
get fucked.
>>8195652
>Sartre in good tier
>de Beauvoir in poor tier
fuck this.
>>8195797
This. Sartre is shit.
>>8195652
it's pretty good, some odd choices here and there
>>8195680
marxism is ideology too
>>8195811
fuck off OP
>>8195652
>Derrida
>good
>>8195652
>Aquinas in mid tier
>Augustine in good tier
Aquinas is literally just an improvement on Augustine in every conceivable way.
>>8195819
i really hope this was a sincere post
>>8195836
everything is rooted in ideology
>>8195850
yes, but you don't understand what it means when you say that and why you're right. it's pretty funny.
>>8195854
it's funny because I probably understand it better than anyone on this board
>>8195857
it's funny you think that, yes
Fix'd.
You're welcome.
>>8195913
thank you i was very upset by how OP forgot zhuangzi but now everything is ok
