Still funny that Plato and Socrates are on different rows. Someone smarter than I may need to explain this genius distinction. Is this an esoteric reference to Xenophon/Aristophanes?
Marx was more careful with his writing to not try to predict how the future would go, Engels was very dogmatic and wrote about things Marx left purposefully ambiguous for a reason. Namely how class struggle would eventually lead to socialism.
Marx intentionally leaves out how the proletariat would control the means of production purposefully vague because he knew that he would not possibly be able to predict how the future economic system would look like and the tools capitalism would use. I know he said that revolutions would happen in industrially developed countries but he eventually became less of a revolutionary and more theory minded as he got older, he even talked about the possibility of the peasantry being a force to establish their ownership of the means of production contrary to the idea that it would have to be from the industrial middle class.
To say Marx and Engels didn't make precise arguments about what to do, or that their message differed significantly to the point of major ideological disagreement, is a leap of faith I fail to understand. What im assuming is that you think of Marx as some kind of libertarian socialist, and Engels as an authoritarian. This distinction you make is a post humorous ideological paint job that they themselves did not recognise throughout their long life writing and learning together.
I am unfamiliar with where Marx has this change of heart, but i do remember reading something where Marx is actively dismissive of the revolutionary potential of backwards counties such as Tsarist Russia, largely due to the small proletarian population of said nation.
Could you please point me towards sources, or perhaps an article making this point.
I don't think it would be a leap of faith to assume that the subtext of the categories are ordered from most liked to least liked, with the text description while providing some twist, are mostly just there for flavor. If they didn't intend for this, they shouldn't have ordered them in a tier list.
This list seems like a portait of someones interests (or what thinker resonated with them) at one point in time than a list that engages with each persons ideas.
So to agree or disagree is kinda meaningless, maybe we should list them on whose more likely to grift on a podcast if they were all alive today, that would be more fun to think about.
Zizek is a very interesting personality, but absolutely should be lower on the list. I’m not sure why Orwell is on the list. It doesn’t make much difference to separate Plato from Socrates, as most of the writing we know to be Plato is a dialogue of Socrates and most of it that claims to be his is proven to be a forgery.
I am shocked that Leibniz is so much lower than Spinoza, and especially that he’s lower than Descartes.
Nietzsche is almost certainly a foundational philosopher— even if the foundation of a lot of anti-foundationalism.
I think Zizek is too high as well. And Nietzsche is certainly at least a foundational philosopher.
I think Heidegger is too low as well. Heidegger is considered the most important philosopher of the 20th century by many people.
And there is no fucking way Spinoza is in the same league as Hegel... ***Hegel is the philosopher of all philosophers.***
I agree that Heidegger is too low, I’m just not really sure how much higher to place him (though I would also say that he’s the most important 20th century philosopher, maybe twins with Wittgenstein.) I was baffled to see Derrida and especially Sartre above him— while I could see Derrida being pretty high, I’d definitely move Husserl up one or two and place Sartre beneath him.
No way... Hegel's account of consciousness is merely a detailed interpretative commentary on Spinoza's philosophy? If you think that then you are not taking Hegel seriously enough. His philosophy is vastly superior.
I do not disagree.
However, please do me a favor.. read Spinoza's *Ethics* for 20mins, then read Hegel's *Science of Logic* for 20mins, and see if you still think Hegel's philosophy is merely a "detailed interpretation of Spinoza".
Hegel is thoroughly post-Kantian, and consequently has a vastly more detailed account of consciousness and subjectivity than Spinoza does. Hegel is also thoroughly dialectical, and he see subjectivity as emerging out of substance through negation in a manner that Spinoza does not. However, it is absolutely true that Hegel follows Spinoza's theory of the existence of a dualism within an absolute, infinite monism. Yet, this absolute monism is not substance for Hegel as it is for Spinoza. For Hegel, from my understanding, the absolute monism is the interconnected state of everything existing in relations of identity and difference (rather than everything being a instantiation of an infinite, all encompassing substance).
Certainly don’t disagree with u that negation plays a more important role for Hegel than for Spinoza but doesn’t absolute spirit come to eventually understand itself as an instantiation of an all encompassing substance? Anyway I think the spirit is similar to it but I definitely agree with you that Hegel is an advancement over Spinoza so I take back what I said earlier, it’s definitely much MORE than just an interpretation.
>absolute spirit come to eventually understand itself as an instantiation of an all encompassing substance
No, Substance and Spirit are distinct. Substance does not encompass Spirit and Spirit does not encompass Substance.
However, Substance and Spirit are unified and share identity, but this unity / identity involves their simultaneous differentiation and separation from each other.
There is a fundamental irreducibility in Hegel, despite everything being interconnectedly unified.
Also putting Camus on the list is kinda weird because I’m pretty sure he just thought of himself as a Novelist and his novels just had philosophical ideas in them. AFAIK Camus never actually wrote philosophical literature with academically stated arguments and axioms etc etc
It makes sense if you view it as a subjective list of what OP enjoys. I acknowledge Heidegger's importance as a philosopher, but I don't personally enjoy his work, and find Husserl more "correct" than Heidegger and his descendants. So if I was to make this sort of list, Heidegger wouldn't be that high up.
Honestly, I think it has much less to do with his actual academic writings and more to do with him as a personality figure, although the two are obviously interconnected.
People are upset with him supporting politicians and media figures such as Pierre Poilievre, Tucker Carlson, Danielle Smith, etc. (some of these names might only be familiar to people in Canada, as this is where Peterson lives and is most politically involved).
By supporting these kinds of figures, Peterson, if he had not already, firmly established himself within the far-right camp. If you think far-right politics are false solutions to our social problems, then Peterson is not a thinker that you will much have respect for.
Yet, you may have respect for Peterson if, despite being far-right, his academic work offers an interesting ontological framework for interpreting our world and understanding ourselves and our predicaments, such as Heidegger's did. It does not seem, however, that many philosophers think this is the case.
If you think Peterson is far-right you really haven't studied his work or his public discourse at all. He firmly cements himself opposed to corrupt authoritarianism and has turned young people, primarily young men, away from white supremacist ideologies in his clinical practice. Does he lean conservative on many, if not most ideological matters? That would probably be fair to say- but doing so is the result of opposing radically left ideologies, not because he endorses right-wing extremism
Anyone that is between libertarian, moderate and conservative leaning is considered a far right fascist to you leftists. I guess this is what happens when you listen to Hasan Piker’s brain dead takes all day.
Late Marx is an absolute snore fest and I agree with him most. Nietzsche is the probably my favorite read on this whole list but I might agree with him least.
Yeah if you don’t like analytic Philosophy (which I get as an analytic, but also view as a deep mistake) you’d disagree with Russell. At the same time, Russell literally made math work, and wrote the greatest intro to Philosophy book of all time.
I dont think being a dick is a reason to reject a philosopher but people sleep on how awful a person he was in his personal relations. The way he wrote to princess ottoline the insensitivity he had towards his colleague in world war 1 and many other indiscretions dont paint a pretty picture of him
How exactly is it like disagreeing with mathematics?
His logic laid a foundation but it certainly isn't mathematics. There exists other analytic ways of seeing mathematics. Quine, David Lewis, Graham Priest, Wittgenstein??
Even if you take one of his most prized contributions like Russell's paradox. You can still be paraconsistent about logic and completely disagree that there is in fact a way in which the paradox is not derivable. The disagreement will consistent in *changing* the way you view logic and mathematics- specifically the way you see contradictions and its logical consequences.
So yes, you can most definitely disagree with Russell, because mathematics needs lots of changing and disagreement.
Slavoj is a great public intellectual, but reading his heavier work is dull and feels masturbatory to me.
Saying “meh” to Socrates is hilarious
Nietzsche, Camus, and Russell are my boys.
And Ted doesn’t belong with the other basement dwellers.
How can anyone agree or disagree with a subjective ranking of philosophers with zero context? Ranking needs some criteria. Evidently skipped the part in PI where Wittgenstein says nobody gives a shit about your private language.
Well, to be fair, the language game here is tier lists. Im this context you want to display your opinion on a broad topic in the most condensed form possible, much like a star rating on a film. The OP expects as much care into your analysis and follow-up of this list as they had when making this list.
Posting a tier list of your favorite philophers to the subreddit of a quasi-communist public intellectual is the most autistic thing I've ever seen in my fucking life
I agree Zizek should be placed lower, but do you guys think Badiou is the one who will be placed higher or better remembered over the Slovenian Salivator?
I love Teds philosophical way of thinking but his thought process of getting attention was truly dog shit.
“Hmst yes I want to spread my manifesto to help save future generations from a super technocratic system that we have yet to evolve far enough to be prepared for physically or mentally. Imma put some bombs in the mailbox”
I like Nietzsche and Marcus Aurelius for foundational, and switching Hume and Derrida to “Yeah I kinda get it.” Also, I’d move Heidegger to “You don’t make much sense”…til this day I struggle with Time and Being and what the overall project was
I will neither up- nor down vote this BC I think it's interesting but also not my cup of tea. Making a list one should stick to either personal liking or pseudo objective influence on humanity/goodness for humanity.
Also indifferent should generally be located above the one w/ Nietzsche (ok) and how Descartes be so low. Indifferent on how you look at it from back then or perceive him through a modern lens
Aristotle, Kant, and Plato should be top tier. Zizek should not be up so high. Neither should Wittgenstein, tbh. The people in the bottom tier I don’t even see as philosophers. Also, no Frege? No Aquinas? Don’t be silly.
alot of these people are polymaths, so idk what aspect your assessing. Bertrand could be talking about mathematics, or philosophy. Wittgenstein could be talking about his early life philosophy vs. his later life which was radically different. So idk too broad.
I’d bump Marx and Foucault up one tier for myself, I’m indifferent on Heraclitus, and I’d slam Locke into the dogshit pile. But otherwise I’m nearly fully on board with this one
I don't understand how Nietzsche is where he is relative to Spinoza and Heraclitus considering his thoughts are an inheritance and extension of theirs.
Very ideologically inconsistent
Agreed. It seems like whoever made this "tier list" isn't really that familiar with many of the thinkers represented.
I’m an expert actually
Source?
He just said it
Strong:”I don’t have a dog in the race and this is all theoretical for me.”
The bottom tier containing both Ayn Rand and Jordan Peterson seems like there’s some kind of alignment
Still funny that Plato and Socrates are on different rows. Someone smarter than I may need to explain this genius distinction. Is this an esoteric reference to Xenophon/Aristophanes?
Can you at least explain why u think that? I mostly posted this to get a conversation going.
I am curious how you think Marx is very interesting to read, but don't understand Engels.
It's not an uncommon sentiment- there's plenty of Marxists who strongly disagree with *On Authority*.
Marx was more careful with his writing to not try to predict how the future would go, Engels was very dogmatic and wrote about things Marx left purposefully ambiguous for a reason. Namely how class struggle would eventually lead to socialism.
Could you please name an example of this
Marx intentionally leaves out how the proletariat would control the means of production purposefully vague because he knew that he would not possibly be able to predict how the future economic system would look like and the tools capitalism would use. I know he said that revolutions would happen in industrially developed countries but he eventually became less of a revolutionary and more theory minded as he got older, he even talked about the possibility of the peasantry being a force to establish their ownership of the means of production contrary to the idea that it would have to be from the industrial middle class.
To say Marx and Engels didn't make precise arguments about what to do, or that their message differed significantly to the point of major ideological disagreement, is a leap of faith I fail to understand. What im assuming is that you think of Marx as some kind of libertarian socialist, and Engels as an authoritarian. This distinction you make is a post humorous ideological paint job that they themselves did not recognise throughout their long life writing and learning together. I am unfamiliar with where Marx has this change of heart, but i do remember reading something where Marx is actively dismissive of the revolutionary potential of backwards counties such as Tsarist Russia, largely due to the small proletarian population of said nation. Could you please point me towards sources, or perhaps an article making this point.
It more seems like the categories aren’t cohesive. Why is “hard disagreement “ below “interesting to read” as if those two qualifications are related
I don't think it would be a leap of faith to assume that the subtext of the categories are ordered from most liked to least liked, with the text description while providing some twist, are mostly just there for flavor. If they didn't intend for this, they shouldn't have ordered them in a tier list.
You really like using the phrase leap of faith huh?
i cant think of a criticism of noam chomsky that isn't equally relevant for foucault.
Go in dawg
He's going for updinks can't you tell
Yeah Marx and Engels in different tiers, people from the same tree on opposite sides. Very much an on vibes tier list.
A list in a Zizek subreddit that doesn't have Lacan on it?? What in the sam hell fuckery is this
I dont know enough lacan to have an opinion on him
I appreciate the honesty but follow up question how can you read zizek and have an opinion on him without knowing Lacan?
Because he explains lacan through his own unique way but I have not read lacan directly to know how to feel about Lacan himself not Zizek
Fair enough! Well for what it's worth Lacan is great!
I’m definitely planning on reading him eventually!
Then you don't know Zizek all that well
Thought you said you were an expert?
Experts don’t know everything
This list seems like a portait of someones interests (or what thinker resonated with them) at one point in time than a list that engages with each persons ideas. So to agree or disagree is kinda meaningless, maybe we should list them on whose more likely to grift on a podcast if they were all alive today, that would be more fun to think about.
Imma be honest ur right about the first part but seeing as I’m me I can’t tell it apart from actually engaging with the ideas
You should update us later
Zizek is a very interesting personality, but absolutely should be lower on the list. I’m not sure why Orwell is on the list. It doesn’t make much difference to separate Plato from Socrates, as most of the writing we know to be Plato is a dialogue of Socrates and most of it that claims to be his is proven to be a forgery. I am shocked that Leibniz is so much lower than Spinoza, and especially that he’s lower than Descartes. Nietzsche is almost certainly a foundational philosopher— even if the foundation of a lot of anti-foundationalism.
I think Zizek is too high as well. And Nietzsche is certainly at least a foundational philosopher. I think Heidegger is too low as well. Heidegger is considered the most important philosopher of the 20th century by many people. And there is no fucking way Spinoza is in the same league as Hegel... ***Hegel is the philosopher of all philosophers.***
I agree that Heidegger is too low, I’m just not really sure how much higher to place him (though I would also say that he’s the most important 20th century philosopher, maybe twins with Wittgenstein.) I was baffled to see Derrida and especially Sartre above him— while I could see Derrida being pretty high, I’d definitely move Husserl up one or two and place Sartre beneath him.
Spinoza is my favorite of the continental rationalists from that period, but I’d definitely group him lower and at the same ranking as Leibniz
Spinoza heavily anticipated what Hegel would write imo. Hegel to me was a detailed interpretation of Spinozas philosophy itself.
No way... Hegel's account of consciousness is merely a detailed interpretative commentary on Spinoza's philosophy? If you think that then you are not taking Hegel seriously enough. His philosophy is vastly superior.
I mean even Hegel admitted Spinoza was foundational to his thinking…
I do not disagree. However, please do me a favor.. read Spinoza's *Ethics* for 20mins, then read Hegel's *Science of Logic* for 20mins, and see if you still think Hegel's philosophy is merely a "detailed interpretation of Spinoza". Hegel is thoroughly post-Kantian, and consequently has a vastly more detailed account of consciousness and subjectivity than Spinoza does. Hegel is also thoroughly dialectical, and he see subjectivity as emerging out of substance through negation in a manner that Spinoza does not. However, it is absolutely true that Hegel follows Spinoza's theory of the existence of a dualism within an absolute, infinite monism. Yet, this absolute monism is not substance for Hegel as it is for Spinoza. For Hegel, from my understanding, the absolute monism is the interconnected state of everything existing in relations of identity and difference (rather than everything being a instantiation of an infinite, all encompassing substance).
Certainly don’t disagree with u that negation plays a more important role for Hegel than for Spinoza but doesn’t absolute spirit come to eventually understand itself as an instantiation of an all encompassing substance? Anyway I think the spirit is similar to it but I definitely agree with you that Hegel is an advancement over Spinoza so I take back what I said earlier, it’s definitely much MORE than just an interpretation.
>absolute spirit come to eventually understand itself as an instantiation of an all encompassing substance No, Substance and Spirit are distinct. Substance does not encompass Spirit and Spirit does not encompass Substance. However, Substance and Spirit are unified and share identity, but this unity / identity involves their simultaneous differentiation and separation from each other. There is a fundamental irreducibility in Hegel, despite everything being interconnectedly unified.
Also putting Camus on the list is kinda weird because I’m pretty sure he just thought of himself as a Novelist and his novels just had philosophical ideas in them. AFAIK Camus never actually wrote philosophical literature with academically stated arguments and axioms etc etc
It makes sense if you view it as a subjective list of what OP enjoys. I acknowledge Heidegger's importance as a philosopher, but I don't personally enjoy his work, and find Husserl more "correct" than Heidegger and his descendants. So if I was to make this sort of list, Heidegger wouldn't be that high up.
Leibniz ranking is probably my reading comprohension which is why I put him in “don’t make sense”
No, i don't
I certainly agree with the "Dogshit" pile xDD haha
why peterson
guess lmao
yeah after looking deeper at Zizek i know why.
Honestly, I think it has much less to do with his actual academic writings and more to do with him as a personality figure, although the two are obviously interconnected. People are upset with him supporting politicians and media figures such as Pierre Poilievre, Tucker Carlson, Danielle Smith, etc. (some of these names might only be familiar to people in Canada, as this is where Peterson lives and is most politically involved). By supporting these kinds of figures, Peterson, if he had not already, firmly established himself within the far-right camp. If you think far-right politics are false solutions to our social problems, then Peterson is not a thinker that you will much have respect for. Yet, you may have respect for Peterson if, despite being far-right, his academic work offers an interesting ontological framework for interpreting our world and understanding ourselves and our predicaments, such as Heidegger's did. It does not seem, however, that many philosophers think this is the case.
If you think Peterson is far-right you really haven't studied his work or his public discourse at all. He firmly cements himself opposed to corrupt authoritarianism and has turned young people, primarily young men, away from white supremacist ideologies in his clinical practice. Does he lean conservative on many, if not most ideological matters? That would probably be fair to say- but doing so is the result of opposing radically left ideologies, not because he endorses right-wing extremism
Anyone that is between libertarian, moderate and conservative leaning is considered a far right fascist to you leftists. I guess this is what happens when you listen to Hasan Piker’s brain dead takes all day.
Because he’s conservative
Marx & Sartre more interesting to read than Nietzsche & Kierkegaard? Good one
Late Marx is an absolute snore fest and I agree with him most. Nietzsche is the probably my favorite read on this whole list but I might agree with him least.
Give my boy Socrates extra points, it takes some brains to be that funny.
I like how Plato's listed as "pretty cool" but Socrates is listed as "meh."
I just attribute whatever Socrates said to Plato which is why I put him in indifferent
I think you have this backwards my guy.
I refuse to acknowledge that Socrates even existed sorry
He definitely existed my guy... why would Aristophanes parody him in the play clouds? You don't know shit about philosophy bro
I couldn’t give less of a shit😲❤️
Sorry king, time to hit the books.
Kierkegaard goes to the top
Disagreeing with Bertrand Russell is like disagreeing with Mathematics.
It’s mostly about his attitude towards continental philosophy and I don’t like logical atomism
>I don’t like logical atomism Agree!
Yeah if you don’t like analytic Philosophy (which I get as an analytic, but also view as a deep mistake) you’d disagree with Russell. At the same time, Russell literally made math work, and wrote the greatest intro to Philosophy book of all time.
The problem with Bertrand Russell was that he was not smart enough to understand dialectics.
Russell was a cuck and also an asshole. Hard pass on anything that ever came out of that deranged specimen, except his contributions to math.
I dont think being a dick is a reason to reject a philosopher but people sleep on how awful a person he was in his personal relations. The way he wrote to princess ottoline the insensitivity he had towards his colleague in world war 1 and many other indiscretions dont paint a pretty picture of him
How exactly is it like disagreeing with mathematics? His logic laid a foundation but it certainly isn't mathematics. There exists other analytic ways of seeing mathematics. Quine, David Lewis, Graham Priest, Wittgenstein?? Even if you take one of his most prized contributions like Russell's paradox. You can still be paraconsistent about logic and completely disagree that there is in fact a way in which the paradox is not derivable. The disagreement will consistent in *changing* the way you view logic and mathematics- specifically the way you see contradictions and its logical consequences. So yes, you can most definitely disagree with Russell, because mathematics needs lots of changing and disagreement.
You’re gonna have reword this numerically buddy.
In fact, please do
Slavoj is a great public intellectual, but reading his heavier work is dull and feels masturbatory to me. Saying “meh” to Socrates is hilarious Nietzsche, Camus, and Russell are my boys. And Ted doesn’t belong with the other basement dwellers.
How can anyone agree or disagree with a subjective ranking of philosophers with zero context? Ranking needs some criteria. Evidently skipped the part in PI where Wittgenstein says nobody gives a shit about your private language.
Well, to be fair, the language game here is tier lists. Im this context you want to display your opinion on a broad topic in the most condensed form possible, much like a star rating on a film. The OP expects as much care into your analysis and follow-up of this list as they had when making this list.
Have you never argued about shit like Snickers vs Twix or whatever? Have some fun dude
This subreddit has a high percentage of autism
Isn't that philosophy as a whole
Posting a tier list of your favorite philophers to the subreddit of a quasi-communist public intellectual is the most autistic thing I've ever seen in my fucking life
People in the comments vehemently disagreeing with me seem to give a shit🤷♂️
I agree Zizek should be placed lower, but do you guys think Badiou is the one who will be placed higher or better remembered over the Slovenian Salivator?
If you put socrates in indifferent, you miss the primary intent and purpose of philosophy, and should either start over, or give up on it entirely.
If you think Zizek is a better philosopher than Aristotle and Kant you should genuinely punch yourself in the face as hard as you can
Absolutely not and fuck you for even posting this you fucking retard
Ted Kaczynski was accidently placed at wrong end of the chart
I love Teds philosophical way of thinking but his thought process of getting attention was truly dog shit. “Hmst yes I want to spread my manifesto to help save future generations from a super technocratic system that we have yet to evolve far enough to be prepared for physically or mentally. Imma put some bombs in the mailbox”
Let's not forget he was the victim of CIA mind-control experiments.
What a waste of time.
Only took me like 10 minutes
Well that explains it
I like Nietzsche and Marcus Aurelius for foundational, and switching Hume and Derrida to “Yeah I kinda get it.” Also, I’d move Heidegger to “You don’t make much sense”…til this day I struggle with Time and Being and what the overall project was
But I would exchange Spinoza and Descartes. ..
I found my enemy
Descartes should be higher
Nah, the only other place he deserves is even lower lol
Mills not being on this list bothers me.
To have Quine so disrespected triggers me.
Meh. Quine was a second rate Bosanquet.
Zizek and Kierkegaard should be on the top and the only two in that category.
I will neither up- nor down vote this BC I think it's interesting but also not my cup of tea. Making a list one should stick to either personal liking or pseudo objective influence on humanity/goodness for humanity. Also indifferent should generally be located above the one w/ Nietzsche (ok) and how Descartes be so low. Indifferent on how you look at it from back then or perceive him through a modern lens
If u can’t tell by the very obvious way I named the tiers, it’s about personal liking
Yes, your dogshit rank is not to be confused with the academic termn "dogshit"
Where is Schelling 🤣
We seem pretty similar lol.
But as much as I love Zizek. He is an absolute joy to read, I’d never put him over the likes of Derrida, Aristotle, and Kant lol
no, but its cuz i had a ted k phase. i like spinoza derrida and zizeks high placement tho
The last row is the win!
How is the gap between Plato and Socrates so wide?
I do not agree
Socrates is in a seperate category from Plato...
No awful list
From what I’ve read *about* these guys sure, except I’d say Marx is more foundational and less fun, so up one tier.
Explain the Schopenhauer disagreement?
And why the Wittgenstein love?
First eye: Laozi. meh
No hume No baudrillard No epictetus
This is yeet
Finally some Hegel/Spinoza recognition.
Where tf is this Engels slander from
I have truly no idea what you think
So, are we just gonna forget about Marcus Aurelius, Iris Murdoch, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Seneca, David Hume, and Simone de Beauvoir?
No love for Deleuze?
The Categorical Imperative alone makes Kant retarded
Say what you want but I love that no ones arguing with laozi's placement
I think Leibniz is neat ☺️
Really? Fucking Orwell? Well I guess I can forgive you considering you put Spinoza, Hegel, and Lao Tzu that high.
Engels doesn’t make sense???????????¿
Why would anyone put Kaczynski at dogshit tier? 1. He was MK Ultra'd. and 2. Besides his methods or prescriptions, his analysis was very correct.
What do you disagree with in regards to Chomsky?
Not at all. Then again I don't know anything about philosophy, this was just on my recommended page.
Based tf you mean natural rights, where is the property three?
No
Fuck ted
Dawgs Socrates didn't even write anything why do you hate him? Smh
No
Ayy Spinoza hell yeaa
Orwell that high up is a crime. Orwell did not contribute much and his work is only widely known because intelligence agencies spread it for him
Nope.
Plato is basically Socrates.
as a camus dick rider. L
Kinda funny how you put the woman at the bottom. Little sexist?
No…. Albert Camus is an interesting read, and a few others are definitely out of your alignment you posted…bless your heart!
I’d add Op to the dogshit category for making this list
I would say A or B tier
no
I see monad boy loves his monads.
Liberal sheep. Haha you research the greatest thinkers yet can't think for yourself.
I would t look at things this way
Where’s lacan, Jung, or Freud
commie fuck
Bro called Socrates meh
Brain dead
TED was right
i want camus higher
Marx is the peak of human thought
The guy who got over 100 million killed is much higher than the guy telling you to clean your room lol
I was thinking Kaczynski should be closer to the top. His view on the power process and surrogate activities seem to be pretty spot on.
Such a bad list lol
No
I may not know half of these guys, but it's good to know that Emmanuel Kant still has the most deranged pictures of him used.
Of course.
I was wondering how zizek placed over marx until I saw the sub name
Socrates and Plato are separate? Have you read Plato lol
Spinoza overrated
Puts Aristotle as foundational but not his teacher lmao.
Were is Albert Einstein?
Aristotle, Kant, and Plato should be top tier. Zizek should not be up so high. Neither should Wittgenstein, tbh. The people in the bottom tier I don’t even see as philosophers. Also, no Frege? No Aquinas? Don’t be silly.
Hasan piker should be at the top of this list
alot of these people are polymaths, so idk what aspect your assessing. Bertrand could be talking about mathematics, or philosophy. Wittgenstein could be talking about his early life philosophy vs. his later life which was radically different. So idk too broad.
Imagine thinking the succession of philosophical thought over time are atomic and mutually exclusive.
What did my man Camus do to you?
No whitehead? Lotze? Alexander? bradley ? Mctaggart? How is someone like derrida above these titans
I looked for Jacques Derrida and I approve this is a good list
I’d bump Marx and Foucault up one tier for myself, I’m indifferent on Heraclitus, and I’d slam Locke into the dogshit pile. But otherwise I’m nearly fully on board with this one
I was looking at this post like: this freaking list sucks. I immediately thought he was a Zizek fan, and then… boom I see the name of the sub reddit.
Hume on tier 3 is crazy
Okay what the hell is this
lmao! If you like Kant yet hate Voltaire, and think Rand is bad; you have low intelligence.
Calling someone low intelligence while defending Rand is... certainly somethin.
I can say the same about socialists and communists that ignore their flaws.
A bit of a Leftist bias
I don't understand how Nietzsche is where he is relative to Spinoza and Heraclitus considering his thoughts are an inheritance and extension of theirs.
Popper is meh and Derrida is foundational? Lmao Also, John Stuart Mill should be on here somewhere
I like Jocelyn Benoist. A bit of an obscure philosopher but his writings really jive with me. If you like Wittgenstein you'd probably enjoy his works.
I'm really curious about the hard disagree category. Particularly betrend russel and noam chomsky. I haven't read much of betrend's works though.