Which philosopher has developed the most radical philosophy that BTFO everybody and that nobody has any response to and...

Pyrrho the skeptic*

outta the way brainlets

Attached: David_Hume.jpg (800x970, 666K)

this is who i meant by 'that greek guy'

Kant. Everyone after him were just fish jumping on his boat flapping around trying to get attention. Schop worked his way to the helm just to take a selfie with him. Hegel jumped on the boat with a school of students and started pointing at things and making up explanations for them, to the stupefaction of his listeners. Nowadays we're back in the water pretending like he didn't exist, and we've forgotten what water is.

lol kant is a schmuck no one is afraid of him he has been BTFO by everyone after him
this is the correct answer

Badiou
Hegel
Parmenides
Heraclitus

You mean Gorgias?

are those just cheap knockoffs of Bataille? which was the actually sinister character and not those that the worst they did was getting fucked in the ass?

Parmenides and Zeno.
It is radical: everything you see or experience through senses is false, there is no such thing as motion, nothing could be unexisting so everything exist forever and never changes.
Zeno paradoxes are tough to refute and even Plato had problems refuting Parmenides, in fact, in one of Plato's dialogue, his theory of forms gets BTFO'd by the character of Parmenides.

Diogenes

heidegger

Attached: DlwjOoBU4AEsTwU.jpg (1080x1080, 126K)

Got btfo by Descartes cogito ergo sum

Eh. What would be the point of refuting Diogenes? His philosophy only consists in a suggestion on how to live your life: live in
self-sufficiency and control your feelings. Everything else - if there was anything else to it - was probably lost.

he did not. Descartes assumes that both that logic leads to truth and that we can't have certainty of the outside world. epic greek skepticism man says he doesn't know about these things

Never heard of this. What is it? Does it refute Parmenides?

You've yet to tell who this "epic greek skeptic"? Who is he? Protagoras? Gorgias?

Parmenides-gang

Attached: 9CD9282F-DD6B-4B2C-A7A8-5C3586279F50.jpg (1674x2560, 206K)

David Benatar

Attached: David-Benatar1.jpg (510x680, 108K)

Pyrrho

Such an incel-core philosopher

Unironically Plato

Be Plato
>Aristotle talks some shit
>school disregards teachings becomes faggot skeptics
Oh wait mother fuckers, Neo-Platonism! Aristotle is Platonist now!
>early Christians side with Stoics on material nature of soul
And Plato-boo Augustine is now your most important thinker
>Justinian closes academy
Clergy tells him to fuck off, dutifully continues preserving texts (the only complete set by an ancient author)
>Plato becomes increasingly christianized throughout the Middle Ages
Renaissance Neoplatonism!
And on and on.

causality doesnt real mang

Thales

Foucault, because he's an unfalsifiable piece of shit.

Which of his books did you read?

Unironically Jesus. The majority of the world is still pouring over his theories to this very day.

Attached: jesus.jpg (194x260, 8K)

him

Attached: Mainländer.jpg (315x450, 33K)

None because fags don't deserve to have their books read

KANT

>are those just cheap knockoffs of Bataille?
SPOTTED THE PSEUD

JESUS WAS NOT A PHILOSOPHER FUCK OFF WITH THIS MEME!!!!!

God

laruelle

Plato

Attached: 1165 (2).jpg (400x600, 36K)

Citation REQUIRED but only because I love reading about pyrrho.

U mad bro?

You should take solace in knowing that your so-called “postmodernist” opponents also misread/don’t read the fuck out of him.

Attached: F66E06D7-0549-4445-8144-9988A74685F7.jpg (600x674, 60K)

lmao obviously you haven't read:
>Nietzsche
>Steven Pinker
>Voltaire
>Stirner
>Daniel Dennett
>Democritus
>

>JESUS WAS NOT A PHILOSOPHER FUCK OFF WITH THIS MEME!!!!!
This is a dumb as saying Charles Manson or Hitler wasn't a philosopher.

based

this, the sceptics were both the most radical and the most infallible

Zeno's paradoxes are quite easy to refute, they just stem from applying math incorrectly

>everyone's a philosopher
kys

>we cannot assert with any certainty whether we can know anything
He seems quite assertive that he knows that...

that's why he just stopped talking eventually, because of assholes like you

Well, he is long-dead anyway, so I will take no blame or responsibility for that.

>blindly assuming causality only works forward
Have you learnt NOTHING

a man can dream

Ayn Rand. Any other answer is wrong and every other poster itt, just now, realized I am right.

Attached: 1488705539743.jpg (650x675, 229K)

Attached: 1552212484931.png (1940x2304, 1.27M)

and you absolutely hate him for it

Attached: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ36NOO78YMI-jOfezg2fog6iwv2lz19cy11O-AtO2qkMk2oc9XzQ.jpg (225x224, 6K)

Attached: smug hamann.jpg (200x237, 36K)

Literally early Wittgenstein and if you disagree you need to brush up on your history

what an ugly jew

late wittgenstein already btfo early wittgenstein

>developed the most radical philosophy that BTFO everybody
Some can do this.
>nobody has any response to and makes everyone tremble in fear
Nobody can do this.

C H Y N A

Attached: 1552080705792.jpg (750x1166, 124K)

joke as you want but china has already overtaken much of the low-mid level development in humanity and I would expected it to start taking the intellectual domains in the next 20-30 years at the latest
we have already seen the decay of institutions of academic thought so I dont have much faith that our next crop will yield intellectuals that were as hyper-competitive as we have seen in the past
the west is currently a dying entity

The greatest and most relevant political philosophy to the English speaking world

Attached: Patriarcha;_or_the_Natural_Power_of_Kings.jpg (220x388, 28K)

Unironically me.

>we've forgotten what water is
I was agreeing with you until you thought it appropriate to quote DFW, opinion discarded

came to post

I assume you're just referring to convergent sums, in which case not really. It's still not considered to have been settled.

Zhuangzi

>""""(((intellectual)))""""
Intellect means understanding and implies a soul. Chink bugmen may collectively churn out STEM papers like they do iPhones but it will be no different from neural nets or theorem provers spitting out papers, and they won't possess any actual understanding. So instead you can at least try to reframe your xenophilia in terms of chinks being the incarnation or harbinger of Capital-AI-Gnon.

Rand.
She even ruffles Yea Forums's feathers.
Triggered just about everybody that she possibly could, and continues to do so today.

where to being with Guenon, and why?

The thread asked for “radical” not “retarded”

QED
Rand BTFOs yet again.

This. She's the one that makes the most people irrationally angry.

> Capital-AI-Gnon
stopped reading there

feminists
commies
academic subjectivists
centrists
christfag conservatives
anarchists
echoesposter dipshits

She gets them all

>lol don't shake hands with anti-semites, it's really bad okay :^(( don't be a meanie!
>sinister
lmao

Attached: adi_sankara.jpg (240x320, 46K)

Intro to the Study of Hindu Doctrines. The first half of the book barely talks about poos and lays out Guenons basic ideas. After that read Crisis of the Modern World then Reign of Quantity, then take your pick based on your interests

yeah the reason she makes everyone upset is because no one likes seeing someone else be retarded

Wittgenstein!

Attached: diogenes.jpg (600x396, 46K)

Stirner

I don't give a shit about DFW you invalid. Does he own that analogy? You've been on Yea Forums too long m8

Those STEM papers are 90% shit and at least 50% plagiarised
>t. Had my work plagiarised by chinks

>Foucault
nice

>get fucked in the ass to own the fascists
based

Sounds exactly like what an "AI" would output, doesn't it? A hollow mishmash of outside samples appearing superficially related yet demonstrating no actual understanding.

No philosopher has ever given even a half satisfactory answer to his problems, so it's him.

It seems like Pyrrhonism is the most difficult to critique.

It doesn't make any positive claim, it just relentlessly doubts the claims made by others. There is nothing to critique.

Skepticism in general is very weird. You can't make a positive statement about our lack of knowledge without making axiomatic assumptions that can themselves be doubted. Hence the criticism of the phrase "we cannot assert with any certainty whether we can know anything". Language seems to inherently make positive proposal.

Attached: man_cliff.jpg (1000x1486, 1.02M)

This.

Land's idea of capital is so far in the future it's basically NeoChina.

Pick any Zen master.

GHINA RULL GABIDULL

GHINA DUH FUTUH

N WE MUS ARRIV SUN

OR NUT FAS

N NUT ZENDIEND

Attached: Valhalla of Kunlun Skies.jpg (1600x900, 145K)

>much soulless chink bugmen can’t possiblt UNDERSTAND things like us chad westerners do
cringe. reminder people used to say the same thing about Germans

QED

This is very likely the correct answer

Pyrrhonian Skepticism is irritating as hell, and Sextus Empiricus isn't even fun to read.

My submission is Berkeley. Denies the existence of physical matter, and yet also refutes skepticism. Absolute madman.

Attached: george-berkeley.jpg (500x380, 163K)

probably sam harris, steven pinker, jordan peterson, marie kondo, or zizek desu

How does he refute skepticism?

holy shit adding marie kondo to that list just made it so perfect

Attached: ahriman begone.png (1280x798, 925K)

Refute might be the wrong word, I meant to say that his project AIMED to refute skepticism, without necessarily endorsing his success in this endeavor.

Ah, I getcha! Cool beans

Hegesias was banned from teaching because he caused too many suicides.

The only people that say this are those who never read late Wittgenstein but have heard the meme that he "retracted everything he said in the tractatus," which never fucking happened.

putting pinker and dennet on that list even comparing them to the others, also voltaire wasn't a philosopher

What does early Wittgenstein say within the Tractatus? I've read that the ending of the Tractatus dismisses itself as nonsense, a ladder to discard after reaching a new perspective.

Unironically Plato

hack

Me, I BTFO everybody in my head
t. solipsist

>The Objectivist Theory of Concepts
>solving the "Problem of Universals"
>the discovery of the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy
>the formulation of psycho-epistemology
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
>Rand's Razor
>providing LfCap's then lacking philosophic base
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem
Boy o boy retardation as far as the eye can see.

Attached: 1545793652242.png (292x551, 307K)

>I've read that
Dude it's like 30 pages, just fucking read it
The tractatus does not dismiss itself as nonsense, it just encourages the reader not to refuse to dismiss parts of it
If this strikes you as the same thing I'll need you to finish high school before coming back to Yea Forums

The Tractatus does tell you to dismiss it, because it is talking about things that cannot be talked about, but of course, you won't realize this until you read it to understand the difference between what can be shown and what can be said, so the book itself is still necessary as a tool in a way. Not who you were replying to btw, just a passerby. Things that can be said clearly are contained within the natural sciences, which according to Wittgenstein, operate in a closed tautological system of everything that "is the case". The subject of philosophy is outside the realm of what is the case, into the "transcendent", which cannot be spoken of clearly, and therefore cannot be spoken of at all. Philosophy, in this case, can only exist where it cannot exist, which makes it nonsense. The Tractatus is both the way to understanding this and an eventual target.

We're all photographers on this bless-ed day

>solving the "Problem of Universals"
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem
Cite ONE of these. Just one. No, linking a 1 hour video or 50 page essay does not count as citation. Show us the part where she does even just one of these things.

>The Tractatus does tell you to dismiss it, because it is talking about things that cannot be talked about
Wrong. He states like 6 times that what he is doing is not looking at the limits of what we can talk about by attempting to go beyond them, but by defining them from within, thus giving us an idea of what it is we can't talk about - that which is not part of what we can talk about.

>Philosophy, in this case, can only exist where it cannot exist, which makes it nonsense. The Tractatus is both the way to understanding this and an eventual target.
I strongly suggest you reread it.

Here ya go nice and short just what you're looking for.
peikoff.com/opar/universals.htm

>He states like 6 times that what he is doing is not looking at the limits of what we can talk about by attempting to go beyond them, but by defining them from within

Correct, but this goes back to the show/say distinction he establishes, and he seems to suggest that the Tractatus does not survive this distinction in the end.

sextus empiricus

>Does he own that analogy?
Yes, yes he does. Stealing is lazy user, especially if you pretend to know nothing about what you've stolen. It was a tired analogy even when he pushed it at grad students, and the way you've used it is a meaningless attempt at profundity.

>2a = a + a
Since we're appealing to math, the truth value of this statement is dependent on the construct of a ring, it's meaningless in broader algebraic contexts. There's also nothing inherently numerical about "a", the statement offers no insight into the nature of "a", only the structure in which it stands (when she says "a-ness", she seems to really be referring to numericity). Now, if the construct itself exists only to satisfy our human interpretation then the statement gets its truth value from the same, so I don't think this argument lends itself to objectivism any more than to idealism.

nice meme

Me

>it's meaningless in broader algebraic contexts
Why on earth would it be? Broader peices subsume ever increasing degrees of mathematical operation which is exactly the way more complex concepts depend on, interrelate with, and subsume lower concepts all way down to the foundational axioms.
>the statement offers no insight into the nature of "a"
It need not, the nature of a exists at bottom in the axiom of identity.
>Now, if the construct itself exists only to satisfy our human interpretation then the statement gets its truth value from the same
"Only" you say. You seem to be implying there is something indicting about this fact. You may find it interesting to look into Rand's redefinition of "Objective" in the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy and the O'ist theory of concepts. Here Rand discovered that both the rationalists ' empiricists' very conception of objective was wrong. And that is her greatest accomplishment; that the concept of objective does not exist in only metaphysics or only epistemology but exist in both concurrently. A link:
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

Mert said St Thomas Aquinas and used Aquinas to beat down all positivists
my $ is on the Dumb Ox, despite being unbelievably obese, he was a lightning-quick rapier-sharp debater who won over one million debates with students and peers without defeat
so Aristotle responding to Plato makes philosophy the Queen of the sciences and Aquinas is peak philosophy

unironically

Attached: 1200px-MaxStirner1.svg.png (1200x1555, 84K)

Attached: linkola.jpg (1200x1465, 260K)

Laozi

Guenon was a monist, so he kinda agreed with Parmenides

"ethical" egoism and laissez-faire capitalism. thats a big YIKES for me dawg

no really, ethical egoism is much less philosophy and much more sociology. its more or less just describing how ppl act, not how we should act, and then tags one some bs rationalizations for it.
she believes nobody inherently deserves anything. you dont deserve to be loved, you dont deserve a piece of the pie.
her philosophy is a bunch of bullshit and nobody in academia takes it seriously.

>nobody in academia takes it seriously.
this is usually a sign that it has some value

>you dont deserve to be loved, you dont deserve a piece of the pie
Recoil as I post your terror word. EARN

>Why on earth would it be?
The operations involved, · and +, are intrinsically bound to the components of the ring. More particularly, the interaction between them, the distributivity of one over the other which yields the identity 2a = (1 + 1)a = a + a, is intrinsic to the ring itself. These structures represent axiomatic subsystems of their own and the broader context doesn't have the necessary foundation to make a judgment on the statement.
>the nature of a exists at bottom in the axiom of identity
But what can the axiom of identity tell us about universals?
>"Only" you say. You seem to be implying there is something indicting about this fact.
Well, it seems to me that this argument for universal realism relies on objectivism: the assumption that an algebraic statement can be judged objectively, that it is meaningful outside of man-made structures. As long as the question of whether algebraic structures are discovered or invented is unanswered, I think the argument is missing a premise.

Thanks for your suggestions, in any case, I will read more.

do you earn love by being born beautiful? do you earn a piece of the pie by being born into a rich family?

>professional thinkers
how pathetic

Correct.

no you dont understand the paradox sums have nothing to do with it

Spooked.

That's because he's a hack, Aristotle and Aquinas were right all along.

Heraclitus

Heidegger

>dennet
don't be racist against p-zombies

bump

>ring
Not necessarily, any abelian group is a Z-module. But that's far beside the point.

based

Of course, thank you.

nothing strange about bowing down to whoever will let you get away with worse stuff if you want to be a weird degenerate

Yes. You earn by being and achieving things.
Effort has nothing to do with it. The average cro-magnon deployed ten times more effort than us, only to obtain basic survival. Effort fetichism is one of the worst things to happen to moral philosophy. It is also 99% of the cases linked to disliking work which only makes it much worse. At least the fascists fetishized work because they actually liked it.

>you need to have these many qualifications to think

Attached: IMG_4852.png (408x408, 4K)

b-b-but he's edgy

Novalis

How did you come to this critique if not by the process of logic? If you're going to LARP as a sceptic you should make like Pyrrho and fuck off, and stop talking.

I like to think Aristotle was there to witness Diogenes interrupt Plato's class and that being a significant moment for him.