CW: Pederasty
How many of them do you think would start talking about how much they love boys the moment a greek brings it up?
You must log in or # to comment.
The idea that Marx is somehow less of a debate lord and less influential on the modern era than St. Thomas Aquinas is extremely funny to me. What is he gonna do, go over the eschatology of angelic beings?
Aquinas is truly a fucking travesty. I’d take Martin Luther for that price, but my god, what a pathetic list.
I said it elsewhere here, but Augustine mogs Aquinas in every way that matters, incredible the original creator didn’t recognize this.
The best part about charts like this is discovering the ideology of its creator
Illiterate marble statue pfp who receives philosophy through phonk edits of peaky blinders quips
Not best part as in “super interesting” but as in a fun little game I like to play
idk, they just seem like a boring Christofascist loser who fetishizes Catholicism but is also cool with Protestants.
Not best part as in “super interesting” but as in a fun little game I like to play
Luther is better but I think top row would be overrating him.
Dude was the first poster
i remember seeing a Thomas Aquinas philosophy book in a book store once and feeling curious enough to get it. I bought it, went across the street to read it, and returned it in like 15 minutes. I apologized perfusly, and explained that the book was incomprehensible drivel. They laughed. They were cool.
I was once told that I needed to read the Summa Theologica in order to restore my belief in Catholicism because, and I quote, “It is the most logical document on Religion that has ever been created.”
I think I got three chapters in before I kinda just petered out because not only is it not really logical, but I realized that it was essentially one gigantic fanfiction on how all of his favorite ancient authors are actually all talking about the same thing, which just happens to be how Catholicism is the one true religion. How convenient.
It was probably extremely impressive for him to draw so many correlations between disparate authors and concepts in a time period where the average literacy rate was essentially non-existent for the vernacular, and extremely limited to the upper class for Latin. That said, his philosophy is pretty fucking dog shit.
Hey come on he basically perfected syncretism
I had a theology teacher in high school who kept hyping up the Quinque Viae as some undeniable proof that god exists.
This is pretty unfair. Not that his work is “true”. I mean it’s metaphysics…
But he didn’t say all ancient thinkers were actually Catholics (in the way the church was Catholic at Aquino’s time). It’s more that “god” was more like what ancient philosopher’s believed the universe or the origin of reality to be, than what the church said god and jesus were.
That god was an ineffable totality.
Dude was basically a panpsychist. We take it for granted now cause that’s a pretty common take for modern christians. But at the time it was pretty heretical.
Like if you compile his beliefs on god and the universe, dude does NOT sound like a catholic at all. Except if you count the super heterodox times of the first few centuries CE, where there wasn’t really a dogma stablished yet.
He sounds like Einstein or something tbh. Who wasn’t a christian.
Dude literally has entire arguments with the lists for the hierarchies of angelic and demonic beings, forgive me if I am not exactly going to equate him to one of the best physical minds of the twentieth century. By saying that ‘He sounds like Einstein.’, is quite literally doing the same thing that he does to Aristotle to him. I do not think they actually thought the same way, though there are some threads of throughline just simply due to the fact that they both exist within the Western tradition of thought.
I am not saying he thought that Aristotle was a Catholic, I am saying that he absolutely discards and disregards areas of those philosophies that directly contradict Catholic doctrine. I am of the opinion that he is fundamentally incorrect about their compatibility, with both the Augustinians and Averrioists being far more on the money about what the implications of the philosophy lies. You can learn far more by reading about St. Thomas than reading St. Thomas imo.
His real contribution is that reason is at least equal in its revelatory power to faith. However, much of his reasoning is usually incredibly strained and the substantial metaphysical application is fairly well annihilated by both David Hume and Kant’s Critique on Pure Reason. He isn’t as logical as he thinks he is, which to be fair to him, he seems to have recognized later in his life as he never actually completed the Summa Theologica, saying “All I have written seems like straw to me.”
That said, Catholicism has always been extremely heterodox in terms of it’s belief systems, as long as you did not threaten the political and social authority of Church, which St. Thomas always went out of his way to affirm. He does not appear that heretical within the larger tradition.
Tbf the scholastics did turn debates (disputationes) into a highly formalized game. Aquinas wrote his major work in that debate format and had almost as much of an impact on Catholic theology as his primary influence, Ibn Sina.
I was aware, however, the kind of shit posting that Marx was up to is far more akin to modern discourse as opposed to any kind of formalized disputation game. So many as a philosophy debate team Aquinas might be more valuable lol.
19 Marxes and one Rand. The Rand will buff the stats of the Marxes
I was thinking something similar with 15 Marxes and a Hegel.
Not taking Augustine for 25 is a sin, figuratively and literally.
Mogs the top tier entirely, Aquinas can’t even hold a flame to Augustine’s ability to be a hater.
I don’t know much about Augustine besides that he used to party hard before he found god. Would he synergize with the Marxes as well as Rand or Hegel?
He’s basically got the erudition of platonic philosophy without the pedo shit. He also had a poster’s heart, going hard against manichean and pelagian thinking.
Was thinking exactly this as well, but set it up like a game of Secret Objectivist. Will the Marx-hive figure out there’s a traitor amongst them?
Actually, this could be a fun party game. Everyone is randomly assigned a philosopher and must argue their point of view, try to guess who they are.
This basically makes any principaled socialist F tier lmao.
True… unless you have enough socialists in the mix that it’s impossible to guess which one based solely on the socialism!
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.
What do you mean? It’s important as a Marxist to understand how other people can think what they do, so arguing from the standpoint of some liberal or a sicko like Nietzsche shouldn’t be too hard.
19 Marx and 1 Foucault so the Marxes are at maximum anger 24/7
You know it is a bad post when there are the statues
I would simply go off-list and pick up 100 copies of Diogenes for a buck a piece.
That’s like recruiting a heard of cats.
Perhaps a pack of feral dogs
And they all have to stand on the same street corner
Add in one Kierkegaard because I want to see them eat him
We talking young Marx or old Marx?
Young Marx would all hate each other. Old Marx would form a polycule
Engels: You know, I’m something of a philosopher myself!
The fact that Luther isn’t here is disgraceful. Truly a dogshit chart.
Take Augustine twice and Marx 10x. Absolutely body everyone who shows up.
Feels like the setup for an existential comics piece. I should catch up on that
Those are good. Incredible characterization of Marx every time he shows up… yeah, he throws the table and yells “revolution”, but… have you read him? He might well do that in at least some of those scenarios! Guy founded the damn International!
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.
marcus aurelius is so fucking mid too
The first two are Plato and Aristotle, and I think the first guy in the second row is Augustine. I don’t know who else could be mistaken for Aurelius.
Derailing this to add that Thomas Aquinus was also fucking mid. “God exists because God exists, obviously. Don’t believe me? Ask God.”
I think that’s more Anselm of Canterbury (who is a true $5 theologian), but I agree Aquinas is being wildly overrated here.
crap you’re right
You are correct on Augustine, who is a goat.
He was boomer tier philosopher even in his times lol
$50 for Montesquieu? The “climate is why Europeans are civilized” guy?
Are you calling Kant or Hume Montesquieu?
Hey now he also came up with “uhhhh maybe all power shouldnt be concentrated in one office or something” which nobody had ever thought of before
Give me a plato so that he can flex during a debate and the rest Marxes
By all accounts Socrates was also quite the athlete and was hoplite line soldier. Ignoring… the other stuff…
The problem with Socrates is that he was more debate bro than he was the type of guy to flex to overrule someone’s argument. W aura on Plato so on and so forth
Fuck are those Plato and Aristotle? I just assumed one of them was Socrates because greek philosopher statue and all that… I mean Socrates is almost a Plato insert so I am not too far off I guess.
Plato and Aristotle in that order (just googled it).
The Marx Fission Chat would be legendary
You gotta add one reactionary to keep the group cohesive otherwise they just attack each other’s.
Max stirner hours who’s up
- Marx because obviously.
- Hegel to give him a chance to react to Marx. Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis or whatever.
- Aristotle because Marx claimed that he rightly recognized the commensurability of objects of different use-value but never reached the theory of abstract labor because Greek society was based on slave labor. Not sure how Aristotle responds there.
- Kant because his idealism would stir the pot. He argued that there are no material conditions that can justify revolution, as the existing state embodies the right to rule and a revolutionary maxim does not satisfy the categorical imperative.
- Foucault because I’m curious as to whether he thinks conditions are fundamentally different under communism or whether oppressive power structures remain.
enslave Kant and see if his opinion changes
Real thought hours. It’s not as though Kant ever actually followed his categorical imperative, even in his personal life.
I expect philosophers to be hypocrites (and that doesn’t make them wrong) but Kant was flat-out racist.
The same genius who devised the theory of transcendental idealism, and made room for our noumenal freedom and religious belief, also argued for a hierarchy of races with white Europeans seated firmly at the top. Really puts a bad taste in your mouth.
David Hume stays winning I suppose.
