Who is the most radical thinker that BTFO everybody and no one has any response to except maybe brainlet complaints of...

Olavo de Carvalho
Here's he destroying Descartes and Kant (translated title:The follies of Kant and Descartes)
youtube.com/watch?v=OIz-EHyYizs
Here's another one on Descartes, with a of BTFO of Derrida (translated title: Descartes and the errors of Derrida)
youtube.com/watch?v=QEWkJg-LGaA
Here's a complete BTFO of Kant (translated title: Professor Olavo de Carvalho explains the errors of Kant's philosophy)
youtube.com/watch?v=t4hGRoGVGPo
Here's a short one on Wittgenstein, calls him a confused thinker:
youtube.com/watch?v=WWoMbWs1MNk
Here's another BTFOing of Derrida
youtube.com/watch?v=CP5fO4NAnYo
Here's a BTFOing of Marxist teachers (translated title:How to expose a Marxist teacher)
youtube.com/watch?v=8CI1oteu5MA
Here's a BTFoing of Bertrand Russel's book, "Why i'm not a christian"
youtube.com/watch?v=7okGVjHZ-JY

You can find many, many more BTFOs of Olavo, and his teachings on Aristotelianism, Traditionalism (he teaches Guenon a lot), Catholicism etc etec

>Olavo has propagated several hoaxes and conspiracy theories,[51][52]including the infamous recurrent hoax of Pepsi using cells from aborted fetuses to sweeten soft drinks, that has been debunked for many years.
>Carvalho also said there are no proofs of heliocentrism[61] and that geocentrism was as valid as heliocentrism "since you can you use different points of reference."[62] In 2018, on Facebook, Carvalho said that he had no "definitive answer" to many "questions", such as whether the Earth is spherical or flat.[63]
lmao, this is ridiculous

Attached: Philip-K-Dick-android-011.jpg (1316x789, 378K)

The Buddha.

bump

kek
The guy is a boomer neocon who spouts gnostic bullshit while pretending to be Catholic.
Be thankful that he is only known by huezilians and stop embarrassing yourself.

the late 20th century french intellectuals

They didn't BTFO anyone except the retards that like to cite them thinking that they're actually saying anything of any relevance.

The only philosopher that BTFO'd everyone he met was Socrates.

Literally fake news.
He's going to be remembered as the figure who literally turned Brazil into superpower. Cry more, esquerdalha, the man has BTFO all of your favorite philosophers, writers, and politicians. You won't even engage with his thought because it's so complex you can only utter "m-muh p-pepsi!". He has used the Theory of The Four Discourses to BTFO Lula into jail. He has used Aristotelianism and Scholasticism to BTFO atheists into hell. He has used Human Action and Traditionalism to BTFO Marx into obscurity, and basically, you're fucking stupid. You are literally a two digit IQ retard who falls for fake news about Olavo in 2019. I'll be happy to laugh in your face when Olavo dies (people only get recognition when they die)and be remembered as the greatest thinker of the 21st century.

Now imagine how it feels to have small IQ people actually listening to this charlatan as if he were a sage; I couldn’t believe that so much retardation was possible, even among the “educated” classes. It’s hard to be Brazilian.

>The only philosopher that BTFO'd everyone he met was Socrates.
Not Parmenides.

Attached: brainlet wojak 13.jpg (645x773, 62K)

*snap*

Good bait, this boomer is senile and literally shares fake news and stories

>esquerdalha
>dancing on the hands of the kikes and their false dichotomy between left and right

I rest my case.
Also, Orlando Fedeli already BTFOd him and he was a borderline schismatic, just to put things on perspective.

Christ. And they burned down the musuem, too - every academic I know was in shock. This is just adding insult to injury.

>tfw american
>civil war or ww3? lmaoooo

Attached: B797387F-4A15-4C50-ADC6-C981C1ADECA9.jpg (500x376, 46K)

Post-Renaissance Italian thinkers.
like Leopardi and Vico

Butterfly

Do you guys really think she’s 47 ;_;

bicho tu tá passando vergonha

Eu quero acreditar que isso é bait, porém é difícil. De qualquer forma é vergonhoso

Basically made everything his bitch.

Attached: 220px-Bertrand_Russell_1957.jpg (220x278, 20K)

I hope so. That just makes my woody harder.

You are correct. He really has BTFO philosophers who had been BTFO before, which in itself is not very difficult. I can refute Descartes too.

He's also BTFO almost every single Brazilian intellectual, which, again, is entirely easy. Any analytic philosopher (which he isn't) could do it.

The main issue here is that the Brazilian intellectual environment has been so entirely taken over by ideological penetration that people became unable to think critically, and therefore have unlearned how to properly analyze arguments, which means Olavo only gets called insults and very few people truly argue with his philosophy. Up to now, I've only seen scientists doing it (Eli Vieira, Adonai Santanna, a few others), which is to be expected, since ideological penetration hasn't really reached - or at least not much, as far as I know - the science departments yet.

Judging from his internet work, Olavo's popularity among educated Brazilian is a proof of his famous phrase that "Brazil's universities are only useful for creating drug-addicts and whores" or something like that. As for his philosophy, I haven't read it, and won't, for I have very little time for continental-style big thinkers.

The museum was burned by Olavo's enemies, though: the administrators were members of PSOL (Socialist Party), but the media just decided to quietly not mention it. In fact, one of the people who probably suffered the most with it is a friend of Olavo, prince Phillipe - him and the rest of the Brazilian Royal Family were very shocked (the museum was established by their ancestors).

Is this bait, or are you mentally challenged?

Attached: 1493284968055.jpg (250x250, 10K)

>In fact, one of the people who probably suffered the most with it is a friend of Olavo, prince Phillipe - him and the rest of the Brazilian Royal Family were very shocked (the museum was established by their ancestors).

Their style of government and the heritage of their ancestors are some of the strongest reasons for Brazil being the country that it is today. Brazil was up to the XIXth century - and almost up to the beginning of the XXth century - mostly a rural, semi-feudal land where the political and ruling class were composed of family members of ignorant and semi-literate farm-owners whose life work concerned basically the use of slave or semi-slave work for the production of simple raw materials. Industrialization, investments in urbanization and sanitation, investments in science departments, in modern technology and above all in the people of the nation were almost nonexistent. Even the “intellectuals” of the country were mostly only windbags with some knowledge of rhetoric, Law, theology and pseudo-philosophy.

When do you thing the favelization began in the major urban centers? How long it took for health and education concerns to spread throw most of the country? Did the Royal Family really paid close attention to innumerable social horror that were happening right under their noses, not to mention in the furthest regions of their empire? Brazil is mostly the result of what the US would be if the Southern States were their only government. The Royal Family has no right to come forward now and claim the they were beacons for reason, justice, communal well-being and investments on the greatest of all riches of a nation (it’s people). They weren’t then and they are not going to be now (imagine coming forward and supporting a guy who pays homage to proven-torturers on the Congress, just to mention a single example).

Whenever I see midwits like that “prince” (has he achieving anything remarkable in any field of science? Is he creating great art? Has he created any significant work in any field even of the Human sciences?) trying to preach morals as if he came from a line of grand benefactors and talented visionaries that makes me want to vomit.

People who are proud of the Portuguese Royal family (or even of any Iberic ancestry, for that matter) are all idiots.

Fortunately, none of those silly claims are implied in anything I said. I am no a monarchist and have never studied Brazilian history since finishing High School (only Sergio Buarque, but that was generalization-making pseudoscience, so I left it). This means I have have no opinion on whether the Monarchy was good or not.

Baseado.
Cringe.

Heraclitus already dealt with him

Sérgio Buarque was not a real historian, and sociology is not at all a science (maybe a soft one, but then again soft sciences are barely scientific, anyway). You could write an equally "good" book defending the opposite of what he did. For instance, you could defend Brazilians are not cordial at all as long as you provided a convenient definition of cordiality and a conveniently researched (i.e., through selection of sources) view of the Brazilian people.

Sergio Buarque de Holanda was, in short, a hack. Great writer, I concede; erudite thinker, I confess; but still a hack, I assert.