Who did it the best?

Not that poster. Correlationism is a speculative realist concept. Speculative realists claim that everyone who disagrees with them build their ontologies around the assumption that the external world is correlated to the mind. Speculative realism avoids that problem by making up "random" stuff and acting as though that were a more primordial, nondualist engagement with reality.

As far as who did it best goes, my vote goes to Kant. Whitehead or Deleuze are a distant tie for second place. Wittgenstein hadn't read anything before attempting to debunk metaphysics. Heidegger is fatalism hiding behind mystical language. Derrida can't focus, but he's fun to mess around with. Hegel created a modern mythology, thus undermining metaphysics. Badiou is probably not a serious philosopher at all.

>Speculative realism avoids that problem by making up "random" stuff and acting as though that were a more primordial, nondualist engagement with reality.
explain. as previously stated, keep in mind that i am a midwit

Table has properties outside of human perception that are not table-like

Historically philosophers broke reality into dualisms, say speculative realists. But these dualisms had to be correlated (e.g. mind with body). But if they were correlated, they could not truly be dual. Speculative realists posit that we should allow each element of dualism its independent reality. Hence all the mind gets to do is speculate, and this speculation is in its own sense "real."

Check out Tristan Garcia or Quentin Meillassoux

ok, so you're saying whitehead and deleuze AREN'T speculative realists? then what are they and how do they deal with this?

Correlationism is critisized by the Speculative Realists. Whitehead was a Speculative Realist before it was a thing. Deleuze has been critisized of correlationism.

Ah, so Whitehead is the one criticizing correlationism. Well what I'm trying to understand is what does he offer in place of correlationism? How does he escape it? Thank you for answering my questions thus far

occurs to me that I dont think Brassier even mentions Whitehead in Nihil Unbound. And ive only read the one paper by Harman about objects not being able to ever interact

I have never engaged speculative realism but that really sounds like a strawman. The only genuine substance dualist was Descartes, philosophers after him made use of dualistic language, but Kant for example was certainly not dualist in this primitive sense. His dualism is of methodological nature, mundus sensibilis and intelligibilis are only distinct for the purpose of our philosophical inquiry, but in reality of course in a concrete unison.

jesus it's an insult to put Badiou on there

even Deleuze i'm fine with to an extent because at least he was really trying, but Badiou? fuck man

>Badiou's Number: A Critique of Mathematics as Ontology, Ricardo L. Nirenberg and David Nirenberg
jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660983
>To Preface the Response to the ‘Criticisms’ of Ricardo Nirenberg and David Nirenberg, Alain Badiou and his two catamites A. J. Bartlett and Justin Clemens
jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662746
>Reply to Badiou, Bartlett, and Clemens, Ricardo L. Nirenberg and David Nirenberg
jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662748

The argument is not that speculative realists are correct in accusing others of correlationism, silly. The poster you address is implying that speculative realists construct a straw man. Kant, as you correctly state, was no metaphysical dualist.

Matter of fact, neither were Husserl or Heidegger, two others criticized by speculative realists as correlationists.

Speculative realism is an echo chamber. They just don't listen to anyone's criticism and keep publishing books based on patent misreadings of philosophers.

RANKINGS
1. Being and Time = Phenomenology of Spirit
Both are complete, comprehensive, and changed the landscape after publication. I personally prefer Heidegger, but I won't pretend like Hegel is bad or doesn't matter. Pound for pound, these are the winners.
2. Philosophical Investigations
Loses points for being pessimistic and incomplete, otherwise, another game changer and worth many revisits.
3. Process and Reality
About the closest anglo philosophy ever came to producing a genuine mystic, and a damn good attempt at that. Never took off the way it should have.
4. Critique of the Power of Judgment
Not even the best out of the "Critique" series, but influential just the same.

POWER GAP
THE EVENT HORIZON

5. Deleuze
6. Badiou
7. Derrida

These three are interesting as standalone works but have damaged philosophical discourse as a whole. I would say they have damaged my opinion of the French, but luckily for them, it cannot possibly get lower, so they are safe.

Does that apply to Whitehead? Is he part of the echo chamber that misrepresents the named philosophers?

Whitehead isnt a mystic
No. Speculative Realism is a neat idea but the people that made up the movement in 2007 had no discernible talent. Whitehead didnt even know what Speculative Realism was and did what they were trying to do a lot better.

Well, certainly not some literal who secondary lit about Badiou

The jury's out for deliberation on whitehead, imho. His work is undeniably complex, and it's made even more difficult because it's often defended by true believers, and criticized by people who haven't read it (see the whitehead btfo meme). Whitehead is worth reading, but if you get any traction with him, I'd say you have a moral duty to calmly and rationally enlighten the rest of us.

NOT ONLY DO I THINK THAT WE DONT KNOW WHAT WERE DOING, I DONT EVEN THINK WHAT WE THINK WE ARE DOING IS WHAT WE ARE DOING - SWAMI NANANANA

Attached: 67699D81-CD9E-4F00-A58B-F0F6B6810C96.jpg (1180x904, 294K)

>Whitehead isnt a mystic
yes I know thats why I said the closest they ever came

so this is the next level of critique. summing up philosophy with emojis

fpbp

Like...he isnt close to being a mystic. When I hear the word mystic I think of a new ager who goes "just look inside yourself bro." mystics have no real depth, they dont articulate anything, and they basically pull shit out of their ass. Whitehead is a very serious thinker and rigorously articulates a metaphysical scheme.

I see, yes. It's kind of sad speculative realism seems so bunk, because I really enjoyed someone revitalizing Hume. I am not aware of any other Humean philosophy that is appealing. Is anyone else here?

That is not really a fair description of mystics, look at someone like Eckhart

Shestov

Is he explicitly Humean?

He thinks Hume was a kind of fundamental fissure in the history of philosophy that basically fucked the entire discipline. He sees Kant(and even some of the stuff Hume said) as a failed attempt to reintroduce logical necessity to a world that Hume had made fundamentally uncertain. He talks about older philosophers as well and he mentions Kierkegaard a lot.

Athens and Jerusalem is the place to start. Shestov is a Christian though, so his answer to this absolute epistemological confusion is God.

They all got primordially BTFO by Guenon, so it doesn't even matter.

>Guenon
literally who?

Attached: guenon.png (1773x867, 2.24M)

The key to solid epistimology is math and self-evident existence of mathematical objects. That's where Kant broke his teeth with his "bro, it's just properties of space". That's where anyone referring to probabilistic reasoning in some way finding himself in dead-end if he have enough wits for that. That's where ancient greeks sought the truth.

Deleuze, Derrida, and especially Badiou are nowhere near comparable to the others. Even the suggestion is like comparing Dan Dennet or David Chalmers to Locke or Descartes.

Don't get me wrong, someone like, e.g. Derrida is great, but his essential ideas mainly flesh out and expound upon the work of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Husserl, and Kant.

Deleuze is most definetly comparable with Kant and Whitehead

Nah man Kant was smart as fug bruh

Cudworth

Attached: 9780521479189.jpg (266x400, 9K)

Lmaoing at the chart why is it a secondary work on badiou? Also derrida a shit

Faith in physical reality is essential just embrace positivism and move on with your lives philosophycells

Derrida>>>Deleuze, Heidegger, Wittgenstein>>>>>>>everyone else. Derrida was the only one that made conscious our entrapment within language and provided a mechanism for this entrapment. He reached the border of metaphysics and placed his hand on it. Deleuze and Heidegger intuited this entrapment, but never brought it to the level consciousness that Derrida did. The others were simply doing RPG dungeons and dragons magic systems.

This is a really uncharitable take on mysticism, and when I associated Whitehead with it, I meant it as a genuine compliment to him and his work. New Agers are a mockery of a valuable tradition in both philosophy and theology.

kek

THIS. They simply could not contend with the Eleatic doctrine.

He talks about Hume in chapter 2 in that book and then never again :|

so I get that it's a meme and all, but what do Parmenides and Guenon have to do with Whitehead

No he brings him up several more times, often just by talking about Kant's 'awakening from dogmatic slumber' which is of course due to Hume. It's a central theme of the whole book, how Kant tried to deal with the problem.

I mean

>Doubtless Kant did not exaggerate Hume’s merits when he wrote in
his Prolegomena that since the beginning of philosophy no one had ever
discovered a truth equal in importance to that which Hume discovered.

He clearly thought Hume was extremely important.

Whitehead

Kant, obviously.

Derrida.

Heidegger and Kant(/infers Hegel).

youtube.com/watch?v=a53s4jyCqqU
youtube.com/watch?v=1Y-xxhBia0s

Attached: Wagner with hat.jpg (300x300, 10K)

nice fucking neckbeard loser

t. Nietzsche

>want to return to Hume after Kant.

Why? Kant showed how Hume was essentially unconcerned with describing actual empirical reality. He was more concerned with converting metaphysics into a nihilistic atomism.

Hume clearly had never touched a volume of Leibniz or Spinoza. Kant's work was heavily influenced by Leibniz (and thus cross pollinated by Spinoza) through the medium of Wolff and Baumgarten. These were the more important influences on his work. He (Kant) showed how metaphysics and rigorous empiricism are not mutually cancelling, as Hume made it out to be.

Hume woke Kant from his dogmatic slumbers not because he enlightened Kant, but because he made Kant realize that empiricism had gone completely haywire and anti-intellectual.

Least I'm not the one who is so insecure he covers his face up with a moustache but is scared of having a beard on the neck. Not to mention how you are not only just a great philosopher, but by no means the greatest. I, on the other hand am the greatest artistic genius to ever of lived. You just never outgrew your edgy stage in reacting against the paternal figure. But I think we both know this just stems from a jealousy that I - although your prefrontal cortex mass - have the undeniably, infinitely larger cranium. Which makes the bitter loss all the more un-satiating, that you were 'this' close to the biggest, but twas not to be by not only another - but the greatest.

Your impudence is of no necessary argumentation beyond its simplicity of idiocy and personal vermince.

T. Wagner

Whitehead is definitely a mystic, a very rigorous one, and that's precisely his appeal

I freely admit that the remembrance9 of David Humewas the very thing
that many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave a
completely different direction to my researches in the field of speculative
philosophy. I was very far from listening to him with respect to his conclusions, which arose solely because he did not completely set out his
problem, but only touched on a part of it, which, without the whole being
taken into account, can provide no enlightenment. If we begin from a wellgrounded though undeveloped thought that another bequeaths us, then
we can well hope, by continued reflection, to take it further than could
the sagacious man whom one has to thank for the first spark of this light.
So I tried first whether Hume’s objection might not be presented in a
general manner, and I soon found that the concept of the connection of
cause and effect is far from being the only concept through which the
understanding thinks connections of things a priori; rather, metaphysics
consists wholly of such concepts

Kant didn't think Hume was 'haywire and anti-intellectual', he thought he was a genius and credited him with the fundamental insight that led him to construct his entire concept of the apriori synthetic, he just thought Hume couldn't clearly see the implication of his idea. Where Kant privileges this function of Reason, Shestov moves in the other direction and says that Reason's necessity is now suspect.

Based Shestov poster

the purest of the Russian gnostics.

No doubt Kant respected Hume, but as a foil, not as a hero. The real heroes, as I already said, were Wolff and Baumgarten. The first critique is loaded with criticism of Hume's shortsightedness. See A760/B788 where he very respectfully calls Hume out as an anti-intellectual.

Kant avoided the twin threats of anti-intellectual empiricism and dogmatic idealism by reforming the nature of reason itself. I don't think there's any other thinker in history who has come close to pulling that off.

Who the fuck cares?

Hume doesn't think cause and effect can be deduced a priori, only from empirical experience e.g. the famous example of the billiard ball. He doesn't think anything can be deduced a priori, the transition from specific to general knowledge being founded in totally non rational instinct.

Kant revealed as an absolute brainlet

In order from based to cringe:
>Deleuze
>Kant
>Wittgenstein
>Whitehead
>Heidegger
>Hegel
>Badiou
>Derrida
Prove me wrong. Protip: you can't.

Kant>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hegel>>>Heidegger>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wittgenstein

Others are irrelevant.

Incredible the kind of impact Wittgenstein had without fully understanding what he himself was doing

Midwit question time: is Kant directly refuting Hume’s claim that we can “never” really induct anything, or is he just saying that he doesn’t give a fuck? I mostly lean towards a super powerful version of the latter.