Who would be on the Mount Rushmore of philosophers?

>Jordan Peterson
>Stefan Molyneux
>Ben Shapiro
>Lauren Southern
this is the only right answer sorry not sorry libtards

Attached: 1562785664367.gif (248x203, 154K)

>socrates as a philosopher
>not just a mouthpiece of plato
lol

>Epicurus
>Schopenhauer
>Stirner
>Nietzsche
>the author of my diary desu

this

four Max Stirners

>Plato
>Aquinas
>Kant
>Hegel
>Nietzsche

>me at age 7
>me at age 25
>me at age 54
>me at age 70

monuments are supposed to showcase symbolic figures. Plato furthered the idea of Socrates as symbol for the supreme philosopher.

ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE HATED THE MERE IDEA OF HAVING THIS GAUDY ROCK AS A SYMBOL OF LAND GRAB.

Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Kant

THIS AGGRAVATES ME!

Attached: Chris Redfield.jpg (233x216, 6K)

Philosophy:
>Socrates
>Augustine/Aquinas (Jesus was a religious figure not Philosopher, as Wagner put it: "It was otherwise with the Christian religion. Its founder was not wise, but divine; his teaching was the deed")
>Descartes
>Kant

Literature:
>Homer
>Wolfram von Eschenbach
>Dante
>Goethe

Religious:
>Zoroaster
>Abraham
>Buddha
>Jesus
I admit this list does not feel right.

Music:
>Bach
>Mozart
>Beethoven
>Wagner

Psychology:
>Wundt
>James
>Freud(filthy Jew)
>Jung
I admit I am only really guessing for those prior to Freud.

Historic
>Alexander the Great
>Augustus
>Charlemagne
>Hitler
The movers of history, refer to Hegel for the criteria: napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleon-hegelian-hero/

Attached: The Calling face - Arno Breker.jpg (373x500, 26K)

>Literature:
>>Homer
>>Wolfram von Eschenbach
>>Dante
>>Goethe
Oh fug, forgot about Shakespeare, new I was missing someone here. Not sure where to put him, if I did add him I would shift Dante down and remove Wolfram.

youtube.com/watch?v=mfI1S0PKJR8

Attached: Victim - Breker.jpg (373x599, 56K)

very true!

Marx
Foucault
Sartre
Jesus

Kafka

Kant
Fichte
Schelling
Hegel

noice

>not realizing that philosophy is a spook rendering the four Stirners of mount rushmore useless

thonks

>not realizing that philosophy being a spook is a spook

>wittgenstein
Only real contribution to philosophy was being so smart that he figured out most of it would be impossible to prove, that language is infinitely complex, and that we think in pictures. Undoubtedly a genius but his work hasn't left as much of a mark as Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, etc.

Nietzsche
Plato
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Richard Feynman

>Only real contribution to philosophy was being so smart that he figured out most of it would be impossible to prove, that language is infinitely complex,

Uhhh I have apple, uhhh there exist beings among beings and we are perceiving beings - duhh. Uhhhh I say that I am holding an apple.

Seems pretty simple and objectively true to me user.

The problem with anyone more recent than Aquinas is we know too much about who and what, so individual achievements like Newton and Darwin seem too small, and culture has been degenerating with politically correct jerks being promoted. Descartes, Locke, and Hobbes are induhvidualist whaargarbl. Once we put the West back in order we can talk about who was the most important philosopher to putting the West back in order.

> Dante
> Goethe
> literally who
Tolkien and Lovecraft created new genres for philosophical reasons a namedropping brainlet would never understand

nod an argumend

OK Stefan

I'd add art.
>Michelangelo
>Rembrandt
>Monet
>Van Gogh

>Homer
>Literally who
A-user?

Wittgenstein once spent several hours in an argument with Bertran Russell refusing to agree that there wasn't a hippopotamus in the room. There is no objective truth because there is no objective language, there is subjective language and we suppose that someone else's subjective language aligns with our own. Language is itself a game where we communicate with an end goal in mind, the other persons response to our prompt. Thus if I communicate to you that I enjoy your company, and you respond with a smile and say 'me too', then I have satisfied my own idea of what I wanted to happen when I said what I did, but I in fact have no objective way of knowing that my statement actually presented in your mind the same idea it did in my mind, I simply know that the response was in line with my desired outcome based on the collective understanding of language and interaction I possess.

Nietzsche x4

Attached: 130309-004-C8E4C84A.jpg (356x450, 39K)

if only you had been there, he wouldn't have gotten syphillis
actually he would, because to get women a man needs to be the kind of man who gets women, and Nietzsche was evidently not very intelligent

>Rene Guenon
>Rene Guenon
>Rene Guenon
>Rene Guenon

Been reading Erik Erikson?

they were from the same guild and a secret room is in rushmore, also mixing themes and sources is distasteful

might as well stare at the grand canyon for better insight

>try to create a society free from religious influence
>the people start worshipping you instead
religion is natural

Attached: 1538781532914.png (500x500, 243K)

that's called idolatry

an idol cannot be natural because it's an objectified preconception

>Enlightenment was so thought provoking

Attached: images (2).png (282x179, 14K)

>Plato
>Aristotle
>Hume
>Nietzsche

Wait are you referring to Homer? The father of poets? Or are you referring to Wolfram? The author of Parzival and the greatest Medieval poet other than Dante?

And as great as Tolkien and Lovecraft are their "unique creations" are more like the edging out of a tunnel in a mountain pass already made long before. Not to mention Tolkien happened to edge out a tunnel exactly like Wagner on the other side of the rode which he strictly assures he didn't copy. Just that "great minds think alike".

You mean visual arts right user? I was going to make a "general art" so that encapsulates all forms but it would just of been dominated by musicians. And even then visual art still should be split into painting and sculpting. I agree exactly with the first two but yea Van Gogh was good just not "that" good but especially not Monet. He painted some nice paintings but he isn't in the same league.

But there wasn't a hippopotamus in the room from Bertrand's conception, as well as the collectively general conception. Although it may be difficult to exactly understand how, why and what we use to define we know at the very least intuitively that we are defining "something" generally shared.

Don't act like you don't have at least some coherent understand of the sentence "I have a apple" even if you didn't know what an apple was you understand in a generally emotive way "I have".

Socrates
The Buddha
Confucius
Jesus

>Confucius
Put Kant here and it's acceptable.

No no, you're all wrong. We must consider each head individually. From left to right we have:
The second greatest quartermaster in American history
A writer with grand ideas but enacted the very opposite
A Republican who knew the sculptor
A dictator who violated the constitution and caused the death of half a million Americans for no good reason.

how about a mount rushmore of Native American Indians

that would be much more thought provoking

with cowboys on a totem

THERE THEY ARE ALBERT

FACES OF STONE

ez

Attached: gustav-klutsis-latvian-1895-1938-raise-higher-the-banner-of-marx-engels-lenin-and-stalin-1933-lithog (848x449, 116K)

>Nietzsche was evidently not very intelligent
wewlad
e
w
l
a
d

>how about a mount rushmore of Native American Indians
But not the crazy horse monument?

Ok so:
1. Shimon bar Yocha (creator of the Kabbala)
2. Marcus Aurelius
3. Trump
4. Marx

Kant
Buddha
Wittgenstein

This is the list of Big3 I felt genuinely receiving a divine revelation from reading the works of them.

>Kant
>Marx
>Plato
>Spinoza

The only one who I might change is spinoza

A faithful interpretation of Wittgenstein really DOES mean acknowledging a lack of knowing what an apple is or what the verb has means, he goes on about this in length, when you say "I have an apple" you aren't actually saying I have an apple you are saying 'I am communicating to you that I have an apple' but that does not actually mean that I have an apple means the same thing for you as it does for me, it's like the way red might not be the same for you as for me but we both call tomatoes red. It's that multiplied by every word in existence. We may both observe different realities but describe them using the same language because our language is acquired through shared observation.
You probably haven't even read Tractatus, don't ever pretend to be smart again.

>Jesus
Paul maybe

>Plotinus
>Zhuangzi
>Nagarjuna
>Shankara
Lots of anonymous philosophers I'd pick, but there's no record of what they looked like

Nagarjuna
Dharmakirti
Karmapa III Rangjung Dorje
Jamgon Kongtrul I

Ok, now this is epic.

Attached: BenShapiroOkThisIsEpic.jpg (276x183, 9K)

All shit.

He was too intelligent for his own good. Led him to aspie tendencies and crazy righteousness that drove him mad. Fun to read tho, no doubt

>Plato
>Aristotle
>Descartes
>Kant

You can make a good argument for Aquinas Hegel too,
I personally wouldn't put Nietzsche up there more so because of his radical overhaul of philosophical thought is less of the classical idea of philosophy that most people share
>>Alexander the Great
>>Augustus
>>Charlemagne
>>Hitler
Why Hitler but no Napoleon?

missing Saint Rogan

> Montaigne
> Plato
> Nietzsche
> Augustine

Literature
> Proust
> Joyce
> Shakespeare
> Dostoevsky

Freud's a filthy Jew? and how do u not include William James

History
Hitler's a meme answer, he effectively conquered a weak Europe, lost it all, and is now despised and the cause of overreaction and oversensitivity in the world. What he did is also grossly misconstrued. Churchill was a better man than Hitler, but had far less power. It's clear that you don't like Jews though from Freud, so you seem to have accepted the main stream narrative of Hitler and despise human prosperity in general by aligning with evil.

anyways
> Napoleon
> Marcus Aurelius
> Theseus
> Abraham Lincoln

20th century
> Churchill
> Truman
> Teddy Roosevelt
> Helmut Kohl
Hm to Reagan, Tony Blair, Thatcher, Gorbachev

Stupid meme but I lose every time

Hitler is one of the most recognizable historical figures period, he easily makes the cut.

>plato
>marx
>hitler
>boris johnson

>Plato
>Joe Rogan
>Nietzche
>Kant

Haha you fool, your brainlet mind failed to comprehend the fact that we intersubjectively hold a general conception of "I have a apple". Wittgenstein wasted far too much time caught in the inter-general-detail or in other words the transforming "thing" or rather verbal aether for reciprocation.

Seems like someone just got outsmarted.

Attached: Sorta smug Wojak.png (680x574, 127K)

>Why Hitler but no Napoleon?
I know it was tough but Charlemagne given from the view of Hegel's philosophy of history is almost a necessity. Napoleon, as amazingly important as he is, compared to Hitler no way. The modern world is a total reaction to the 3rd Reich, it would be wrong to say so but you may say that Hitler created the modern world. Could write an entire book on the nature of the Fuhrer from the Hegelian standard but I think you understand.

I want to know if Nietzsche's moustache is structurally sound in rock form before voting. Stalin's wasn't as big and they definitely reweighed his head to not have those statues topple forward of their own accord.

>Literature
Would only consider Shakespeare there, don't get me wrong Dostoevsky epitomises literature just not in the same scale of importance.

>Freud's a filthy Jew? and how do u not include William James
I was partially joking, and kek I did include James.

>Hitler's a meme answer
So what if Europe was weak, you cannot deny his mass influence. You call him Evil then blame him for just one arbitrarily partial of an overall degeneration of society by saying "oversensitised". The modern world really is a reaction to Hitler. That's not to say it wasn't there before.

>anyways
Kek wat? Marcus Aurelius? He was a genius but he is not remembered for what he did but for what he thought. The opposite of the archetypal Hegelian historic figure. Theseus and Lincoln? You'r just shitposting now. Hitlers only a "meme" because his fame.

>20th century
Pffff we got a "Churchill was a hero" autist here. Churchill was nothing but a flunky place that any ass scratching ape could fill. He did literally nothing. And your other choices are utterly insane.

Having both Aristotle and Aquinas is a too peripatecian. Kant is terrible.
>plato
>aquinas
>descartes
>husserl
Seems like a better deal.

Just because you can infer many other meanings and assumption behind the phrase I have an apple doesn't mean you are "really" communicating something different if you were you would no longer be saying the same thing, try prefixing all your comments with "I am communicating..." this will change their content and people will react accordingly, why would this be the case it is only the "real" form of any statement?

Nietzsche treated women like subhumans in his texts. No wonder you're fan of him, roastie.

Yeah, I agree that they are not exactly on the same level as the others, but I thought it would be better to have some kind of symbol for the most important artistic movements rather than 4 renaissance artists or something like that.

>A dictator
>Marx
At least put fucking Stalin, faggot.

>Anders Breivik
>Luca Traini
>Robert Bowers
>Brenton Tarrant

Some guy had a project of turning a huge mountain into a gigantic statue of a horseriding apache. Something that would have been like five times bigger than Mount Rushmore. Guy wasn't even american indian himself. A lakota chief visited and concluded he was a crackpot, but a pretty sympathetic one on an individual level.

It sound a lot like that theory of communication I came up at around age 12.

It really doesn't matter that "your apple" is not "my apple" as long as when I ask you "give me an apple" I get one.

>The modern world is a total reaction to the 3rd Reich
And post-napoleon West is a total reaction to Napoleon. The guy even fathered the nationalists movements of Europe, even Hitler is a reaction to Napoleon. It doesn't make sense to have one and not the other, and by that metric you might as well have Bismarck. Bismarck pretty much created the idea of Germany and the Germans the Hitler was operating with.

Kant is too important to be excluded, Husserl is important too but more niche, also he's not even that good.

Plato, Aristotle, and Kant without dispute, I’m not sure about a fourth.

I’m not sure why people are saying Descartes. Surely his thought marks the split between medieval and modern philosophy, but not because he created some great body of new thought that was majorly innovative in Metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics etc, but because he sent an agenda but raising a couple new questions which he gave totally wrong answers to.

The thing that marks Plato, Aristotle, and Kant off from the rest of all other thinkers in the whole western tradition is that they each developed a totally new perspective in all areas of philosophy. They each stake out totally new perspectives in Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics.

While Aquinas has a reputation as a great thinker my impression of him is as a person who just synthesized Aristotle and Christianity.

The only other people who even come close are Hegel and Nietzsche, i can’t think of anybody else that is even in the same ball park.

I would tend to agree, to honestly there is not so much difference between your description of Descartes and, say, Kant. Having a whole system full of flaws that everyone will argue with and against for centuries onwards isn't so different from raising a few fundamental questions and getting them wrong and in the process starting centuries long controversies. It's a matter of how organized the wrongness is.

The problem of the whole exercise is that Mount Rushmore is literally 3 contemporaries who worked together + a fourth guy who came a century later working on their legacy in the same country and the same offices, while the whole of philosophy is stretched over at least three continents and 25 centuries. It's really best to have a Mount Rushmore for Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy alone really.

That would leave us something like Plato, Aristotles, Plotinus, and depending on wether you prefer a fictional philosopher to a real but badly preserved one, either Socrates of Chrysippus. You can also have Epicurus or Epictetus as compromise fourth choice or, going farther back, have either Heraclitus or Parmenides instead.

See: Exactly supporting my point, language can only be deemed to be objectively valid in-so-far as it generates the anticipated response in your target. From my point of view the person I communicate with may as well be a gate keeping machine that gives me an apple when I ask for an apple. The only source of knowledge I have that my request for an apple is truly parsed in your mind in the same manner as it originated in my mind is the extent to which your response can be deemed valid. However just because your response appears to logically coincide with how I would respond to the same stimulus does not mean you actually have any notion of 'give' or 'apple', for all I know the words I communicated to you were your mind my mind are 'I hate green' but your behavioural response to 'I hate green' is equivalent to producing an apple for me. Consensus of behaviour is not consensus of meaning since there is no objective connection between behaviour and meaning since everything operates within an isolated perception of reality. It's like an exponential function of the nature of qualia, my red might be your blue but we both call tomatoes 'red' despite them being completely different qualitatively. Thus language can only ever really be a game in which I make a statement with the goal of generating a response from my outside environment.

Jesus Paul Augustine Luther

The funny thing is you don't really know how your mind parse the sentence "Give me an apple", so really you might also you can't be convinced definitely that you have yourself a real notion of "apple".
But pointing out that something is not ontologically rock-solid is not the same thing as accounting for why it generally works in practice. I believe that last part (the hardest by far) is what Witgenstein concerned himself with in his later career.

Remember that original post was not actually a defense of Wittgenstein, it was a statement that his contribution to philosophy, while an impressive mental feat, did not have as much of a revolutionary impact on philosophy as Descartes or Aristotle. The sum of Wittgensteins works ultimately is that language is an ontological impossibility and it is better to treat it as a complex game than a system that can have perfect rules.

Aquinas made it sound like he had all the answers in his textbook, which Kant was a reaction to, and around Aquinas' time people didn't like him for precisely that reason. If Kant, then Aquinas, but not the converse. The categorial imperative is cuckshed-tier.

Hegel
Upside Down Hegel
Refutation to Hegel’s initial thesis
Synthesis of Hegel’s Refutation and Upside Down Hegel (Hegelian Refutation)

Structurally Rushmore is
Founder
Imperial Founder
Liberator
Empire Builder

So probably
>Socrates
>Kant/Hegel
>Marx
>Mao

The difference is that Kantianism has been a real school ever since, and there are still contemporary Kantians. While there isn’t still contemporary Cartesians in the same way. I suppose there was a Cartesian movement for a while but still.

And on Mt Rushmore, it’s two contemporaries and then a guy from two generations down, and a fourth guy from two more generations later. Lincoln was born in 1806 and Roosevelt was born in 1858.

>he's not even that good
Now you take that back.

Based

Kant, Descartes, and Aquinas are not philosophers. Aquinas is a theologian, Kant and Descartes are sophists. Mount Rushmore of philosophy would have Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus

TheAmazingatheist
Varg Vikernes
RockingMrE
The Golden One

How can one post be so wrong about so many things?
>not because he created some great body of new thought that was majorly innovative in Metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics etc
But that's what he did. People were autistic Cartesians for a long time. To this day many currents are directly Cartesian. Even a large part of what passes as 'stemfaggotry' on this board is badly digested Cartesianism.
>which he gave totally wrong answers to
I'm no Cartesian but that's some pretty strong words coming from someone admiring Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche.
>While Aquinas has a reputation as a great thinker my impression of him is as a person who just synthesized Aristotle and Christianity.
Aristotle was the prime inspiration of many Christian thinkers for two centuries when Aquinas was writing. Thomas is mostly developing potentialities of Aristotelian philosophy, and also a great theologian, but a 'synthesis' was neither his goal nor his achievement.

>each developed a totally new perspective in all areas of philosophy. They each stake out totally new perspectives in Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics.
If that is the criterion, you would need to list Leibniz four times considering the man wrote a lot about virtually everything and in almost every area gave entirely new perspectives, many of which were really understood more than two centuries after him.

>Psychology:
>Wundt
>James
>Piaget
>Bandura
ftfy, psychoanalysis needs not apply