Post your top 3 philosophers and r8/h8

Redpilled
So close
Flippy shit
Who?
Troll

Me?
Heraclitus
Caliban
Ben Franklin

Myself
Hegel
Plato

Weber
Plato
Rousseau

Attached: 47265384609.jpg (702x869, 232K)

Stirner
Camus
Nick Land

Attached: c6f.png (397x529, 32K)

Nietzsche
Aristotle
Wittgenstein

Deleuze
Guattari
Deleuze-Guattari

thatsbait.gif
That's oddly era-specific

>Nietzsche
>Heraclitus
>idk Sartre
Schopenhauer would make it if he wasn't such a depressed incel, and Greene would make it if he wasn't such a utilitarian cuck

based

8
7
3
7
5
6
4
5
2
7
9
6
7
1

These are objective

Attached: 1555958220490.jpg (1026x602, 126K)

Kempis, Belloc, Scruton

Plato
Guenon
Heidegger

Epicurus
Stirner
Nietzsche

Bonus round:
Harris

based

Plotinus
Kierkegaard
Guénon

Plato
Schopenhauer
Shankara

Plato
Zhuangzi
Vasubandhu

Emil Cioran
Arthur Schopenhauer
Peter Wessel Zapffe

>Jesus
>Marx
>Deleuze

Pessoa
Spinoza
Hermes Trismegistus

I bet you haven't even read them

based

Aristotle, Aquinas, Frege

CS Peirce
John Dewey
William James

Ed kemper
Dennis rader
Elliot Rodger

Not entirely, no. Only read Zapffe's The Last Messiah, I'm halfway through The world as will and repesentation and have read The Trouble with being born. Although I was introduced to Zapffe by Ligotti and my understanding of him is mostly derivative.

10/10

Attached: 1504761612923.jpg (759x862, 116K)

Sneed
Feed
Seed

Marx
Spinoza
Wittgenstein

Parmenides
Jesus
Nick Land

Ebola
Fārābī
Al-Ghazālī

Heidegger
Derrida
Me

You need to cut that with a little water, its a bit strong as it is

My man, you know whats up

Remove Benjamin

Breddy gud

cringe and western liberalism pilled

Nice

We would get along

All fine on their own, but together, youtube mysticism tier

Respectable

For me:
Kierkegaard
Wittgenstein
Heidegger

>calls others bait
>idk Sartre
nice bait

Plato
Dionysius the Areopagite
Pavel Florensky

Attached: christ jerusalem.jpg (920x1200, 277K)

try hard

> Heidegger
> Nietzsche
> Deleuze
> Bonus Round: Me

Socrates
Thoreau
Diogenes the Cynic

>Diogenes the Cynic
Didn't exist.

Jesus was and is not a philosopher.

What good have they done you?

Guenon would not approve of Kierkegaards subjectivism & fideism and trying to bring the Absolute down to his level, instead of raising himself up to it

>Pavel Florensky
based

He was based nonetheless

>Pavel Florensky
>was a Russian Orthodox theologian, priest, philosopher, mathematician, physicist, electrical engineer, inventor, polymath and neomartyr.[1]
damn 200IQ

This

>Jesus is not a philosopher

Wrong.

Oh boy what a take, you sure showed me

Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus

based

cringe

Fideism is the exact opposite of trying to bring the Absolute down to his level, and Kierkegaard never even attempts to do that. There is a reason that you encounter the genuinely religious in the form of the Paradox, because you couldn't bring it to your level if you tried. You couldn't even ask the right question to get that answer. Only God can reveal God to you. You need to read Kierkegaard more closely.

Peterson
Harris
Shapiro

He looked up “top 10 philosophers” on google and decided that the first three would be his favorites/10

playdoh
kekygaard
schoppyhour

Attached: 1566945769548m.jpg (1024x1006, 103K)

Nah, I like Kierk and read him enough.
You need to read this

studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/Letter_on_Existentialism-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx

Hobbes
Hegel
Sellars

Schopenhauer
Stirner
Epicurus

Attached: 2DBBA551-9214-4254-9F78-3CA6E8535892.jpg (1000x645, 70K)

hope you overcome the depression stemming from false doctrines

Okay, I just read this, and will say two things which I think summarize the misreading of Kierkegaard in this article.

1. Kierkegaard does propose some ontological/metaphysical grounding. It is God, and he even says we are teleologically directed towards God. This image of Kierkegaard as a flustered, directionless navel-gazer is a common one but a false one. I will concede that there isn't a whole lot of room for mystical experience or direct revelation in this worldview, but it isn't a contentless abnegation of thought either.

2. The author has conflated being against organized Christianity as a substitute for personal faith with a sweeping dismissal of organized Christianity in general. Kierkegaard saw people walking around calling themselves Christians because they were raised in a Christian society and attended church sometimes, when this really meant very little to their personal existence. He emphasized that Christendom cannot make Christians in the true sense, and this is neither more nor less than most sufficiently developed religious systems would say, or even initiatory traditions. Kierkegaard has not attempted to do away with organized Christianity or traditions, he has closed the door to personal hypocrisy in the individual Christian.

Think you mixed up the chicken and egg order there bud

> Kierkegaard does propose some ontological/metaphysical grounding. It is God, and he even says we are teleologically directed towards God.
But it's not a ground that propels you towards certain insights/truths/logical necessities, instead it's just a trampoline you use to make a leap of faith in some (mostly arbitrary) direction. For example, how could he argue that a leap of faith into Christianity is more justified than one into Islam, i.e what makes one more objectively valid than the other for a seeker who is neither christian nor muslim?

>2
Kierkegaard reacted against pseudo-Christians that's true but that isn't what the author is critiquing him for. Kierkegaard also attacked reason itself and systematic theologies and metaphysics as an intellectual support for seeking the truth, instead he promoted his own brand of fideism/existentialism as an alternative method of seeking.

The thing which is absolutely lacking with the existentialists, and which reduces to nothing their theories as well as their moral attitudes, is an objective truth which is metaphysically integral, whether it be an orthodox theology or an authentic metaphysics. All their partial merits thus fall into a void. “He that gathereth not with me scattereth,” said Christ; the “me” here is the Logos, and it is Orthodoxy in the universal as well as the particular sense.

True, Kierkegaard observed that rationality when left to itself, or rationality without faith, namely “rationalism”, leads nowhere; but then neither does his altogether subjective faith—his existentialism if you prefer—lead anywhere either; and if the objection is raised that this faith nonetheless derives its inspiration from the Gospel, I can reply that rationalism likewise takes its inspiration from certain sufficient data since man lives in a world which is relatively real. What the Gospel—arbitrarily reduced to the fancies of an individual—is for Kierkegaard, so is limited experience for the rationalists; and if the Danish philosopher—who was moreover a very poor theologian—took as his basis the Gospel, then why was he so far from realising the spirit of it? For his point of view even constrains him to become neither more nor less than a saint; yet in fact he was infinitely far from the sanctity of an Albert the Great or a Thomas Aquinas, both of whom completely accepted the rationality that he, the subjectivist, rejected.

Existentialism is a pernicious substitute for intellective contemplation and sanctity. If the existentialists—so imbued with sincerism—were really sincere, they would be saints or heroes and leave rationality in peace.

Hobbes
Spinoza
Hume

The only correct answer itt

Max Stirner
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ibn Hubal

Anti islamic existentialism is my thing

...

>But it's not a ground that propels you...
There is no reason to group those things together. The insight is that in certain things that are taken as truisms or platitudes (like "love your neighbor" for example) there is actually a deeply meaningful relationship between yourself, other men, and God, if you have the strength to follow it through. The direction that your religious belief takes is not arbitrary, since he dismisses Judaism (and in many ways, this connects to Islam as well) as being purely a religion "of the book," of being legalistic and uncreative, of being obsessed with the particular rather than looking for the metaphysical truths beyond the edicts given in the Old Testament. If you're serious about religion, and not just laws and dogmas, it would be in your best interests to consider Christianity (to the seeker you mentioned).

>Kierkegaard also attacked reason itself and systematic theologies and metaphysics as an intellectual support for seeking the truth
Mostly he attacked Hegel, and Hegel was incredibly arrogant in the universality of his thought, but he attacked reason to the extent that it could account for the absolute ontological difference in between man and God. This is not a new idea, this is why even THE systematic Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas, said that much of our language and understanding of God's nature is allegorical. Kierkegaard was not metaphysical either, since most of Philosophical Fragments was devoted to metaphysical issues of being/becoming and how these infinite truths (ie Gods truths) could manifest in temporality. He didn't promote HIS existentialism as a competing system, he challenged the individual believer to do the work themselves, this is the key that makes him different from Hegel, Kierkegaard was not in the business of systems. There is no "ism", fideism or otherwise, that can do the work of taking your own standing before God as a task.

>Kierkegaard was not metaphysical either
Sorry, was typing too fast, meant to say was not ANTI metaphysical

Howdy, partner!

7/10
8/10
6/10
7/10
5/10
7/10
9/10
6/10
9/10
10/10
10/10
7/10
7/10
8/10
7/10
7/10
7/10
8/10
8/10
8/10
8/10

For me:
Śāntarakṣita
Wittgenstein
Mencius

Attached: DyRZ-qLXgAEteZm.jpg (1200x900, 234K)

Marx
Mao
Zhou Enlai

Attached: 1555168471.jpg (1280x720, 314K)

pidser und coler