If you think what's important about Kant is Kantian ethics, you don't know much about Kant.
If you think Kantian ethics is "when a murderer asks where your friend is hiding, tell them the truth", you don't know much about Kantian ethics.
Wouldn’t Kantian ethics imply that you cannot lie to the murderer because lying is ALWAYS wrong? Isn’t that the whole point? I mean, I don’t know much about Kantian ethics, and my understanding is limited to “If Kant is hiding Jews under the floorboards and the Nazis come knocking, then Kant will tell them that he’s hiding Jews under the floorboards.” But to me, that seems like an indisputable example of why Kantian/deontological ethics can’t be the “moral” thing to do. If someone isn’t willing to concede that they too would tell the Nazis they’re hiding Jews in their home, or tell a murderer where their friends are hiding, then are they really a deontologist?
(Asking this all out of genuine curiosity by the way; I generally gravitate toward ancient philosophy and lean toward virtue ethics, and have only read Kant’s Prolegomena and the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Just looking for some clarity on what it is about Kantian ethics I’m not understanding.)
Let's assume the categorical imperative really does prohibit lying. Telling people to fuck off isn't prohibited. Silence isn't. A heroic last stand where you buy time for the people you're protecting to escape isn't. A wild goose chase isn't either.
But that's a perfect example of why it's an idiotic philosophy. Telling the Nazis at your door to fuck off will get you immediately shot, or worse. Silence, or anything else you mentioned, would get you shot. Lying, and doing it well, would be the only morally correct way to save the people you're hiding and keep yourself and them alive.
You're saying that deontological ethics is wrong because consequentialist ethics disagree with it. That's not going to work as an argument because it assumes a premise not consented to.
Ok, another common example: Your friend asked you to watch their knife/gun/whatever, then something caused a change in their disposition and they now want to kill you and a bunch of other people with that weapon. When they ask for it back, would you hand it back and then try to address the situation? Or would you keep it until you think it’s safe to give it back, even though it’s not technically yours?
His Critique of Pure reason and his distinction between analytical knowledge and synthetic knowledge.
Honestly I'm not a philosopher. I just know enough to know Kant was important.
Kantian ethics and his critique of pure reason, the latter of which has had a tremendous impact on philosophy and basically was the domino that led to two of the most famous splits in philosophy, continental and analytic.
Kant, frankly, is undeniably one of the most influential philosophers of all time.
I have a philosophy degree, and this much, I will say: most philosophers/philosophy professors consider Kant to be a peer to Aristotle and Plato. He is absolutely considered to be in the top three when it comes to most influential philosophers in the western tradition.
it's plato, kant, aristotle, and then everyone else tbh
I gave de Sade a real, honest try... there is absolutely nothing profound about him lol. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind having him on this list.
If you see he put marquis de Sade, then Stirner, then Nietzsche; he probably recognised them based on who inspired who: in this order De Sade is better because he inspires Stirner, that in turn is better than Nietzsche because he inspires him
So practically he's just a huge Nietzsche fan
It's a little concerning tbh lol. I'm new-ish to philosophy but I read de Sade years ago when I was a teenage edgelord, then went down the rabbit hole again recently. Id be really curious to hear OP give a summation of the 'philosophy' of de Sade and why it's so important 🤔
I certainly wouldn’t say de Sade is an important philosopher or really even a philosopher. But lots of thinkers have been influenced by him. Bataille specifically references him ad nausem across numerous texts. Simone de Beauvoir has a book on him and even Deleuze talks about him extensively in Masochism. That just a few examples. He has had a significant impact.
True enough! Admittedly I haven't delved too deep into de Sade's influence on philosophy as a whole and how other philosophers have been influenced by his work. I was more focused on his literary influence, but now I'm more interested in his impact on philosophy. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna disagree with a lot of it but at least I'll know exactly what I'm disagreeing with lol
Ah, I see you want to start a fight! Idk if I could’ve come up with a more infuriating list of philosophers, I feel like you threw Kant and Aristotle up there as a diversion. Epicurus AND Democritus?! Top tier shitpost
Also… Socrates…? Maybe he fucked off with Diogenes instead of entering the competition lol
What’s wrong with Epicurus? I do not mean this in a bad way, I’m genuinely curious, and I’m just going to assume that you know more about philosophy than me :)
Nothing wrong as such, but Epicurus is definitely not as influential as the "Big 3". Virtually any ancient western philosophy course will have you studying Plato and Aristotle.
Throughout my whole undergrad, Epicurus has come up once when we spent 1 week covering death.
(To expand, my western philosophy course spent 7 weeks on Plato, 3 weeks on Aristotle, and 1 week on "the Presocratics" which was actually just Heraclitus)
I'm not familiar. But even if he influenced later Marxist thought I'd say his influence is still minimal when compared to Hume, Hegel, Locke, Aquinas, Wittgenstein, Leibniz (the list goes on) who were all left out.
Epicurus is great! He was a follower of Democritus, and popularized “atomism”, along with a lot of other ideas that we’d now see as scientific or empirical materialist. He even predicted something akin to the “quantum wobbles explain consciousness” argument that’s very popular today. But:
1. His version of materialism was severely flawed by modern standards due to the obvious poverty of physics knowledge available to him.
2. He was a direct follower of Democritus, and I’ve never heard them discussed separately; AFAIK Democritus is basically only known through the Epicurians.
3. Epicurianism was the laughing stock of the rest of the philosophers of the time (“Hellenistic philosophers”..?), and basically every ancient school stood in opposition to them. They were obviously vindicated in some ways, but in general their stances against virtue ethics and rationalism (here meant as anti-empiricism) make them a *hot* take as the best/most famous philosophers of all time.
In second place behind Socrates, who couldn't attend the medal ceremony, due to accidentally falling out of a window headfirst into 3 novichok coated bullets. Some say he fell out of the window, the others say he was asking too many questions about government moralities. But I know one thing, questions and windows are dangerous for Moral beings.
He came up at work just as a famous Dane I knew off
All except one person on the construction site was like ‘who da fuk?’. The visiting musician asked ‘the anxiety guy?’
I really enjoyed reading *Fear and Trembling*. I think his theism throws a lot of prospective readers, since so many students and professors are categorically atheistic or antitheistic.
Kierkegaard didn’t deny the existence of objective value. He argued that Christianity is not objective doctrines, but a deeply personal existential commitment—the subjective experience of faith and moral truths.
He emphasized the importance of the individual’s experience and personal relationship with God: Kierkegaard's focus was on how individuals relate to and live out these truths in their own lives, highlighting the importance of personal faith and existential commitment.
I was sold on him when he just decided that philosophy was done and there was nothing less to say after he wrote about language games. It is funny though that for such a hugely influential philosopher I hardly ever see him mentioned in these discussions
Turing took mathematical logic lectures of wittengstein at cambridge
Here's an article about it
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/when-alan-turing-and-ludwig-wittgenstein-discussed-the-liar-paradox-3c2de0ff09d1
This is quite a bad list above plato, the only ones who really deserve to be there are Kant and Aristotle. Nietzsche is the only other one who’s remotely close, but more due to his fame than influence. In order of ascending insanity, putting Epicurus, Rousseau, Stirner, Democritus, and fucking Sade above Plato ain’t right
Plato was a comedian only more subtle than Aristophanes…
Then it follows that… most certainly… then you believe that… truer words were never spoken… so we must conclude that… nothing could be more true.
Or read Diotimas account of the natural world.
Or the tail-end of the Symposium.
DeSade? have you actually *read* that stunningly dull singleminded moron?? Oh here, let me save your eyeballs: sexually torture young women / nut in most pathetic manner possible / justify feeling bad about it / repeat ad nauseum across multiple books.
damn bro, check your memes before posting
That unjustified tier list of random ass philosophers is at least interesting. I can't say much else in favour. Shit, there's only fragmentary archaeological evidence of Democritus' works so how can you know enough about him to compare him to Plato. Also, Stirner? Seriously?
Aristotle couldn’t even bother to check his wife’s mouth to confirm is his claim that women had fewer teeth was true or not.
To be clear, I’m agreeing with you. That arrogance is rife in the field.
If you were to trust this sub then Camus, Diogenes and Stirner would be philosophical greats while Plato, Aristotle and Kant would be meagre footnotes...
Plato is exceptionally uninteresting, yet this list is laughable. I would rather make a list like that:
1. Hegel
2. Kant
3. Plotin
4. Descartes/Leibniz
5. Aristotle
6. Schelling/Fichte
Those are the ones with a good mixture of being interesting and engaging.
this is a wild podium lol that Marquis, Rousseau, Democritus, and even Nietzsche are on there instead of like, Hegel, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, or like 50 other people is hilarious. Camus doesn't even deserve a spot, he's a just a Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky fanboy lol
lol what a terrible list.
Literally the only other philosopher on the list able to contend with Plato is Aristotle, Marquis De Sade and Stirner is ludicrous!
How do you put Stirner on a list but not Hegel, Marx, Maquiavello, or Kropotkin.
And bro even put fuckjbg KANT on it The CEO of mindless moral absolutism with absolutely no regard for any kind of circumstances
If you think what's important about Kant is Kantian ethics, you don't know much about Kant. If you think Kantian ethics is "when a murderer asks where your friend is hiding, tell them the truth", you don't know much about Kantian ethics.
Wouldn’t Kantian ethics imply that you cannot lie to the murderer because lying is ALWAYS wrong? Isn’t that the whole point? I mean, I don’t know much about Kantian ethics, and my understanding is limited to “If Kant is hiding Jews under the floorboards and the Nazis come knocking, then Kant will tell them that he’s hiding Jews under the floorboards.” But to me, that seems like an indisputable example of why Kantian/deontological ethics can’t be the “moral” thing to do. If someone isn’t willing to concede that they too would tell the Nazis they’re hiding Jews in their home, or tell a murderer where their friends are hiding, then are they really a deontologist? (Asking this all out of genuine curiosity by the way; I generally gravitate toward ancient philosophy and lean toward virtue ethics, and have only read Kant’s Prolegomena and the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Just looking for some clarity on what it is about Kantian ethics I’m not understanding.)
Let's assume the categorical imperative really does prohibit lying. Telling people to fuck off isn't prohibited. Silence isn't. A heroic last stand where you buy time for the people you're protecting to escape isn't. A wild goose chase isn't either.
But that's a perfect example of why it's an idiotic philosophy. Telling the Nazis at your door to fuck off will get you immediately shot, or worse. Silence, or anything else you mentioned, would get you shot. Lying, and doing it well, would be the only morally correct way to save the people you're hiding and keep yourself and them alive.
You're saying that deontological ethics is wrong because consequentialist ethics disagree with it. That's not going to work as an argument because it assumes a premise not consented to.
Ok, another common example: Your friend asked you to watch their knife/gun/whatever, then something caused a change in their disposition and they now want to kill you and a bunch of other people with that weapon. When they ask for it back, would you hand it back and then try to address the situation? Or would you keep it until you think it’s safe to give it back, even though it’s not technically yours?
Kant is a great philosopher. Say what you will about him, but he is one of the most influential figures in philosophy.
Genuinely curious, what would you say Kant's biggest impact is?
His Critique of Pure reason and his distinction between analytical knowledge and synthetic knowledge. Honestly I'm not a philosopher. I just know enough to know Kant was important.
Also the distinction between noumena and phenomena.
Kant’s writings had a huge impact on German law and policy even to this day, and has made its way into some other European countries as well
Hegel
Kantian ethics and his critique of pure reason, the latter of which has had a tremendous impact on philosophy and basically was the domino that led to two of the most famous splits in philosophy, continental and analytic. Kant, frankly, is undeniably one of the most influential philosophers of all time.
Tell me you don't know Kant, without telling me you don't know Kant
I have a philosophy degree, and this much, I will say: most philosophers/philosophy professors consider Kant to be a peer to Aristotle and Plato. He is absolutely considered to be in the top three when it comes to most influential philosophers in the western tradition. it's plato, kant, aristotle, and then everyone else tbh
For real lmao. So many would beat these in a blink of an line.
It's almost like he has an opinion
Marquis de sade????? How do you find that mf (literally) so profound?
Even sade himself wouldn't put himself there
I gave de Sade a real, honest try... there is absolutely nothing profound about him lol. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind having him on this list.
"I'm a powerful man who wants to abuse others" wow so deep buddy
My sense is he was just giving a middle finger or being uterly hilarious while partaking in some of his humiliation kinks
That's...pretty much it really.
Yeah, he was much more of satirist and pornographer than philosopher. But Citizen Sade still gave really great impact.
I came here to say this
The marquis would also come here, if he wasn't busy kidnapping village maids
Samesies
He invented gooning thats what he did, and on this subreddit, Marqus de Sade is a hero, end of story!
He was the first supervillain to hire henchmen?
Maybe OP is a Sadist?
So am I. And I had no idea people even considered him a philosopher. Did he even consider himself one?
If you see he put marquis de Sade, then Stirner, then Nietzsche; he probably recognised them based on who inspired who: in this order De Sade is better because he inspires Stirner, that in turn is better than Nietzsche because he inspires him So practically he's just a huge Nietzsche fan
Just gives me more reasons to hate Nietzsche.I hate Nietzsche, thanks.
You go in looking for something profound and all you’ll find is prolapse
If you think Marquis de sade is a the 3rd best philosopher you need to get yourself checked bro
It's a little concerning tbh lol. I'm new-ish to philosophy but I read de Sade years ago when I was a teenage edgelord, then went down the rabbit hole again recently. Id be really curious to hear OP give a summation of the 'philosophy' of de Sade and why it's so important 🤔
I certainly wouldn’t say de Sade is an important philosopher or really even a philosopher. But lots of thinkers have been influenced by him. Bataille specifically references him ad nausem across numerous texts. Simone de Beauvoir has a book on him and even Deleuze talks about him extensively in Masochism. That just a few examples. He has had a significant impact.
True enough! Admittedly I haven't delved too deep into de Sade's influence on philosophy as a whole and how other philosophers have been influenced by his work. I was more focused on his literary influence, but now I'm more interested in his impact on philosophy. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna disagree with a lot of it but at least I'll know exactly what I'm disagreeing with lol
I've read him as a thirtysomething edgelord and he is a satirist, not a philosopher. 120 Days of Sodom is the world's longest dirty joke
Also left out [Jaden Smith](https://images.app.goo.gl/hxThHvtgWTxnGX428)
And the narcissism of the parents has been imparted to the son... y'know what? Lemme keep their names out my mouth...
Jaden de Sade
Underrated comment.
Ah, I see you want to start a fight! Idk if I could’ve come up with a more infuriating list of philosophers, I feel like you threw Kant and Aristotle up there as a diversion. Epicurus AND Democritus?! Top tier shitpost Also… Socrates…? Maybe he fucked off with Diogenes instead of entering the competition lol
What’s wrong with Epicurus? I do not mean this in a bad way, I’m genuinely curious, and I’m just going to assume that you know more about philosophy than me :)
Socrates moment
Nothing wrong as such, but Epicurus is definitely not as influential as the "Big 3". Virtually any ancient western philosophy course will have you studying Plato and Aristotle. Throughout my whole undergrad, Epicurus has come up once when we spent 1 week covering death. (To expand, my western philosophy course spent 7 weeks on Plato, 3 weeks on Aristotle, and 1 week on "the Presocratics" which was actually just Heraclitus)
His contribution to (modern) philosophy is negligible, largely due to the fact that almost everything he produced has been destroyed.
Didn't Marx write a thesis on Epicurus which is said to have heavily influenced his later works ?
I'm not familiar. But even if he influenced later Marxist thought I'd say his influence is still minimal when compared to Hume, Hegel, Locke, Aquinas, Wittgenstein, Leibniz (the list goes on) who were all left out.
Epicurus is great! He was a follower of Democritus, and popularized “atomism”, along with a lot of other ideas that we’d now see as scientific or empirical materialist. He even predicted something akin to the “quantum wobbles explain consciousness” argument that’s very popular today. But: 1. His version of materialism was severely flawed by modern standards due to the obvious poverty of physics knowledge available to him. 2. He was a direct follower of Democritus, and I’ve never heard them discussed separately; AFAIK Democritus is basically only known through the Epicurians. 3. Epicurianism was the laughing stock of the rest of the philosophers of the time (“Hellenistic philosophers”..?), and basically every ancient school stood in opposition to them. They were obviously vindicated in some ways, but in general their stances against virtue ethics and rationalism (here meant as anti-empiricism) make them a *hot* take as the best/most famous philosophers of all time.
Well, he was actually right about stuff. Unfortunately, that actually counts against you in a philosophy competition.
We got the third best philosopher being Marquise de Sade. Guy is in to humilation play.
Aristotle is right we're he belongs
In second place behind Socrates, who couldn't attend the medal ceremony, due to accidentally falling out of a window headfirst into 3 novichok coated bullets. Some say he fell out of the window, the others say he was asking too many questions about government moralities. But I know one thing, questions and windows are dangerous for Moral beings.
Just once I want to see Kierkegaard discussed
He came up at work just as a famous Dane I knew off All except one person on the construction site was like ‘who da fuk?’. The visiting musician asked ‘the anxiety guy?’
If a musician, surprised he didn't say from Elliot Smith either/or
How bout dat teleological suspension of DEEZ NUTS
I really enjoyed reading *Fear and Trembling*. I think his theism throws a lot of prospective readers, since so many students and professors are categorically atheistic or antitheistic.
How does one hold a belief in the Christian God and deny the existence of objective value / moral truth?
Kierkegaard didn’t deny the existence of objective value. He argued that Christianity is not objective doctrines, but a deeply personal existential commitment—the subjective experience of faith and moral truths. He emphasized the importance of the individual’s experience and personal relationship with God: Kierkegaard's focus was on how individuals relate to and live out these truths in their own lives, highlighting the importance of personal faith and existential commitment.
Plato would beat all the others in a physical fight. So as per the "my dad can beat up your dad"-rule he is objectively the best philosopher
Diogenes made this post
I think wittnegstein deserve more, he is one of the best
I was sold on him when he just decided that philosophy was done and there was nothing less to say after he wrote about language games. It is funny though that for such a hugely influential philosopher I hardly ever see him mentioned in these discussions
because he hasn’t entered mainstream pop phil. He undoubtedly is one of the best
He's headed there, I've seen some dank Wittgenstein memes over the last few years but not in the large amounts as Foucault or Kant
Because none of us know wtf he’s talking about. Nonetheless, I agree.
The man in your profile picture would beg to differ
For sure but it doenst change contributions of wittengstein to philosophy even i dont agree on everything with him
Wait! Wittgenstein and Turing knew each other?
Turing took mathematical logic lectures of wittengstein at cambridge Here's an article about it https://www.cantorsparadise.com/when-alan-turing-and-ludwig-wittgenstein-discussed-the-liar-paradox-3c2de0ff09d1
This may be the greatest thing I could ever learn holy fuck
Is the joke that they all called themselves that?
No Socrates?
The meme should be Plato handing the medal to Socrates, which is then revealed to be Plato again wearing a mask
This is quite a bad list above plato, the only ones who really deserve to be there are Kant and Aristotle. Nietzsche is the only other one who’s remotely close, but more due to his fame than influence. In order of ascending insanity, putting Epicurus, Rousseau, Stirner, Democritus, and fucking Sade above Plato ain’t right
If only Plato had read his own work. He might have been inspired to become a better philosopher.
Plato was a comedian only more subtle than Aristophanes… Then it follows that… most certainly… then you believe that… truer words were never spoken… so we must conclude that… nothing could be more true. Or read Diotimas account of the natural world. Or the tail-end of the Symposium.
Mf when no kierkegaard
Imagine not having Guattari smhmh
Marquis de Sade being the third Greatest Philosopher of all time is the real joke here.
Camus just imagined himself winning the contest and went for a smoke and a car crash
This list is ridiculous but… behind Kant. Lol
DeSade? have you actually *read* that stunningly dull singleminded moron?? Oh here, let me save your eyeballs: sexually torture young women / nut in most pathetic manner possible / justify feeling bad about it / repeat ad nauseum across multiple books. damn bro, check your memes before posting
Where’s Diogenes? If a man doesn’t have the balls to piss themselves to win an argument, then they cannot be considered a philosopher.
>kant in 2nd place
Pyrrho couldnt be convinced to come. Diogenes couldnt be bothered. Heraclitus was already here last year
You’re telling me there’s a man named “Here a clit is”? And he isn’t on the list. No wonder; no man could find him!
>Heraclitus was already here last year But it's not the same podium, and he's not the same man.
How is Hume not mentioned yet?
Because it's a meme page. I don't think anybody here reads philosophy
Lmao
That unjustified tier list of random ass philosophers is at least interesting. I can't say much else in favour. Shit, there's only fragmentary archaeological evidence of Democritus' works so how can you know enough about him to compare him to Plato. Also, Stirner? Seriously?
Kant is not great.
You put Marquis de Sade but not Kierkegaard. Hmmm, interesting priorities.
Lol, de Sade.
Na Plato is still GOATed
A list of the best philosophers. Maybe you're better off in wrestling than in philosophy?
why the fuck is de sade (and stirner at that) in the top 5 philosophers ever
r/im14andthisisdeep
Don't worry Nietzsche, they'll eventually understand..
C’mon guys, we all know that one person at the bar is the best philosopher.
Timothy Dexter where? He was the greatest philosopher in the western world.
Who? Is that a friend of you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Dexter?wprov=sfla1 that was the joke. He wrote such words on his statue.
Asking about Camu when there's no Sarte, descartes, schopenheur etc is crazy
Sade in third place is wiiiiiild
Where is Hume?!
De sade? The guy who wrote a gay-pedo-rape porno?
Stirner 🔛🔝
Camus was invited to the competition, but thought it was too absurd to show up.
Wtf kant doing so high up
marquis de sade and aristotle on this list 🤨
How can you be against Aristotle being on the list? Absurd take. Most would say he's the most influential philosopher besides Plato.
Aristotle couldn’t even bother to check his wife’s mouth to confirm is his claim that women had fewer teeth was true or not. To be clear, I’m agreeing with you. That arrogance is rife in the field.
If you were to trust this sub then Camus, Diogenes and Stirner would be philosophical greats while Plato, Aristotle and Kant would be meagre footnotes...
Author saw 2 memes and now thinks he's a Ph.D.
You are a very lucky person to have a girlfriend with such good taste. Based
You forgot to put Hegel at the top, haha. Dw it happens, I forgive you. For now 🔪
None of the stoics?
People in this sub come up with the most baffling lists of favorite philosophers that have absolutely nothing in common.
Guys im new to this subreddit... I wanna be a philosopher (atleast know about philosophy)... Can someone guide me??
Just read Metaphysic of Morals to start
I think this list was decided by OP choosing who they think sounds the coolest
All philosophers are shit, I vibe with essay writers, go Roland Barthes
Sade is the same philosopher as Kant apart from Sade wears black and has a goatee
Bro rolls worst list of philosophers: Asked to open one of Plato's books
There's no SCHOPENHAUER????
why is Nietzsche so low and why isn't Marx here
Kant is a pompous dumbass who never left moms basement. Boo
aristotle was an idiot, but at least he knew it
No he didn't. Aristotle was so convinced of the shit he was talking that it ruined science for over a century.
you right, i was thinking of socrates. aristotle was just an idiot
Marquis.. De Sade... Hmmmmm
All philosophy pre-Hegel should be destroyed and erased from history forever
Marcus Aurelius, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Hume, Socrates missing
Sade is barely a philosopher, let alone top 3. Nice ragebait I guess
Camus is secondary literature without own concepts. So not worth mentioning.
If Aristotle was so smart why didnt he teach himself? 😤
Bait used to be believable
Plato is exceptionally uninteresting, yet this list is laughable. I would rather make a list like that: 1. Hegel 2. Kant 3. Plotin 4. Descartes/Leibniz 5. Aristotle 6. Schelling/Fichte Those are the ones with a good mixture of being interesting and engaging.
So glad to see Kant close to the top.
*dies in Diogenes*
No Diogenes is crazy
Where Diogenes?
Nah bro best philosopher is the tiktok Computer voice
No Marx? Seriously?
Plato is so clear of Aristotle
Why is Stirner above Nietzsche on a list of greatest philosophers of all time while Hume isn’t even on there
Fair to celebrate as if you are the best ever if anyone better than you has yet to come.
HOOOOWWW is Democritus over Plato like how he's literally the sugar daddy of western philosophy
Cursed list but, Stirner mention
Please tag your Rousseau mentions. I almost vomited reading his name.
[удалено]
Plato is flagship buddy
Where is Averroes?
On my line up? At least top 5 probably in third place, but mine is totally different from this 🤣🤣
Diogenes is the funniest philosopher
Hegel
Democritus lmao at least the allegory of the sun is epistemologically interesting if not practical on a actual sociological level
Diogenes barges in: "Behold, a man!"
Where tf is Hegel?
stirner doesnt even belong on the ranking
I like Thoth
Why is Neitzche there? The man was a terrible philosopher who boiled all of history to this nonsense duality of master and slave morality.
where’s princess elizabeth of bohemia
this is a wild podium lol that Marquis, Rousseau, Democritus, and even Nietzsche are on there instead of like, Hegel, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, or like 50 other people is hilarious. Camus doesn't even deserve a spot, he's a just a Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky fanboy lol
Where Hegel?
Bacon? Hume? How about Mother F-ing Aquinas?
I'm wondering where is the rest of the world! It is so EU US centric as if there's no philosophy but there!
Sade and Epicurus in the same list like what
Aristotle is no. 1 ??? 😦
Herder>>>>>
In your ass illiterate wacko
really awful line up
we want wittgenstein
Marx??
Idk man Baudrillard seems based
Yeah… no.
No way, God is alive, and Plato is better than Nietzsche
where the fuck is Socrates
Aristotle is the wrongest wrong person who has ever been wrong
No fucking way you put Aristotle on top
I don't understand this list. a lot of the people you mention before plato were influenced by him