I cringe whenever I read Rousseau

This. He should have stuck to political theory
This as well

Plato, can't believe philosophy relies on so many bullshit

lmao1!!!

this thread is an embarrassment

Locke

The history of Philosophy is more about debating Plato and debating the everything that came from those debates than agreeing with him.

His discourse on inequality in particular

Not OP, but after the Solitary Walker essays, which I enjoyed, I read the two medium essays of note, The Confessions, The Nouvelle, then the Emile. Cringe began for me with The Confessions and lasted through Julie, but Emile was an okay, long, if spotty affair.
..But I really did not like him generally speaking after his Confessions. I suppose I lack charity when reading a man who emotes and clearly behaves like the most manipulative of silly women.

I wish Kant had written his own Confessions too.
Philosophical geniuses can be terribly neurosed. I don't find em cringy but your judgment sure is legit.

Karl Popper, I hate him so much that I would choke her with my hands until he died

Hegel.

You just can't into the absolute spirit

Rousseau is an unbelievable philosopher. Pure reason, the man was very well reasoned

Rousseau is popular?

No philosopher is really ‘popular’.

Within academia he is I suppose. I also think he is grossly misunderstood at large, much like Machiavelli

I felt this way too after Open Society, which made me incredibly angry (it was as if he was purposefully misunderstanding or just plain ignorant). Later I read Conjectures and another book of his essays and somewhat changed my mind. He's wrong where he claims to hate, but a pretty clear expositor of his thinking when and where he feels it really matters. I don't mind him so much anymore. He's just Karl Popper.

Kant, Plato, Descartes, Heidegger, Lacan, Gramsci

Thanks. I began Leopardi's Zibaldone (which I got for xmas 3 yrs ago) earlier this evening- looking forward to seeing how it goes, though I vaguely fear a Confessions-type experience.

>Descartes
How?

>literally invents a bad genius at the start of his metaphysical meditations
I don't hate him but he was legitimatelly retarded

he's a moron

I tried to read Spinoza, but I am too stupid to understand any of his work. I hate myself more than him, but still.

You might find this short lecture helpful even though the guys pretty dismissive of several parts of Spinoza's work.

Why’s that. I always thought he had a pretty standard atheistic view, didn’t even really bash religions like most do.

Be honest Yea Forums, what's the final form of philosophy? Is it realizing it's all just a meme? A wankery of intelligence?

Theosophy or some kind of fucked up mysticism. That's the final path.

Well that saves me the bother of reading it.

You can't really hate someone who was such a good writer.

deleuzianism

Fuck off Plato

Probably one of the most "accessible" and maistream philosophers out there, you will hear him mentioned outside of philosophical conversations, which would scarcely be the case with Husserl or Heidegger.

I love all philosophers seeing as they're my brothers in Logos.

>I had a Kant phase
Kant had a phase with you. Be grateful

Attached: I_Kant_take_it_anymore.jpg (888x888, 128K)

The bad genius trick is the first dance step of the whole epistemological carmagnole, gamin.

I find that user is actually shilling that book pretty well.

Locke is a pretty good pic. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have 300 years of garbage politics and philosophy.

I have changed my radicaly evil ways. Thank you Kant.

Ok but there is no fucking reason to create that entity, no one.

Definitely Nietzsche

But Nietzsche was right about everything

He's like a teen saying
>No mom! Fuck god! Don't say bless you when I sneeze!

lmao

>k but there is no fucking reason to create that entity, no one.

Only if you don't want to dance.

You can hardly call what Rousseau was doing "philosophy". He was just telling spooked people what they wanted to hear during the age of Enlightenment.

Deleuze and every post-structuralist scum

Amazing lecture. Clarified so much of his more nuanced points while amost giving a full account of his views and the why of his method. Really nice.

Fuck Bertrand Russell. I'd shove that pipe right up his ass.

I don't hate him, but I have absolutely no interest in Kierkegaard. He's a complete non-entity to me.

elaborate

I second this.

>I can't do elementary logical proofs

brainlets

>Lou Andreas Salome look I can do etymology poorly
>Lou Andreas Salome look I can misunderstand the implications of my bad etymological work
>Lou Andreas Salome look muh proto-existentialism

lol only brainlets who are dazzled by romantic era prose like Nietzsche

link?

*invents the west*
Heh nothin personnel sophist

Locke, Bacon, Foucault (just fuckin read adorno instead holy hell)

>>I can't do elementary logical proofs
Bertrand, is that you?

>Bertrand Russell
not a philosopher

Sad thing is he would enjoy it, probably

Aristotle was fucking retarded
The original hack

t. wyman

Good on Socrates for changing the western mindset to become more individualistic but a lot of the stuff he says is just common sense so I'm not fond.
I'll give him some leeway because he was from a time and place when people weren't very educated so I suppose the stuff he preached were mindblowing to those old-timey paupers.

Attached: phil-102-intro-to-philosophy-and-plato-socrates-12-638.jpg (638x479, 88K)

there is no way someone can identify Rawls as a brainlet without realizing Rousseau is the ultimate boss of philosophy

My fucking man. Can't stand either of them, and Camus is only slightly less offensively shitty.

Masturbating in front of a lecture hall full of philosophy students.

Rousseau was just some smelly deadbeat Romand doing rosy parlor tricks with Hobbes's corpus.

That has nothing to do with the fact he took a dump on the western philosophical tradition and sperged out on Christianity to the point where he had to write a book on it.

Rand would be too easy, so I'd probably have to say Mill or Rawls. I had so much Rawls shilled to me one semester in a "political theory" class that was really just liberal wanking.

I agree. Hegel is awful. Using pompous language to hide the fact that is philosophical framework is ill-defined. Schopenhauer was justified in detesting him as do I.

Nietzsche

How did one single man build so many civilizations on his back? Why aren't we addressing this question? How the heck did he do it?