The Philosopher Tierlist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- Sorting the philosophers into an arbitrary hierarchy of personal preference.
Patreon: / duncanclarke
Instagram: / duncansclarke
Twitter: / duncanc_
Discord: / discord
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
01:12 - Socrates
02:09 - Plato
04:02 - Aristotle
05:09 - Marcus Aurelius
06:22 - Machiavelli
08:04 - Descartes
10:03 - Spinoza
12:09 - Locke
13:28 - Berkeley
14:50 - Hume
17:23 - Kant
20:16 - Schopenhauer
22:14 - Hegel
23:56 - Kierkegaard
26:26 - Marx
29:16 - Nietzsche
31:36 - Heidegger
34:08 - Freud
36:33 - Wittgenstein
38:12 - Sartre
40:30 - Simone de Beauvoir
43:02 - Camus
45:03 - Ayn Rand
47:27 - Nick Land
48:57 - Jordan B. Peterson
51:57 - Outro
#tierlist #philosophy
Alternate title: Philosophers ranked by how much I politically agree with them.
But how else would you rank them
@@jgaint7912by how influential and new were their ideas seems pretty plausible to me
@@carlossardina3161 it's pretty easy to come up with something new. coming up with something new AND good it's a whole other thing
We found a fan of Jordan Peterson.
I mean, yeah.
This is 100% a meme tier list. No person that is actually invested in philosophy would ever forget to include JADEN SMITH into their tier list.
jaden smith s tier fr
I think you mean Dr. Reiki Master Jaden Smith, Ph.D buddy
@@Sprite_525 Sir Jaden Smith is the most celebrated academic in the last century and surely has a PHD in every field known to mankind
Jaden Smith has the most knowledge on the political and economical state of the world as of right now. definitely an S tier for me
@@cadenzalien4554 so true bestie
How could Socrates not be in S-tier? S-Tier is literally named after him.
Clever.
He wouldn't hang out with him
it is quite absurd
Because hes actually an idiot 😂
was thinking same
This video feels like the average Redditors understanding of philosophy perfectly condensed.
a bad thing i'm assuming🤣
You destroyed this man by just making a Fallacy. I mean, is a youtube video and you still figured out to be and asshole
A circle jerk of leftist sophists... sounds about right. Plato was wrong about nearly everything. Marx is just...ugh... I don't have the patience for this. This dude is a midwit with just enough knowledge to prove how ideologically blinded he is.
HAHAHAHA this comment actually made me laugh out loud xD
Edit: Because it was true and funny.
Are you sure he's not just dumb? it would make perfect sense if he was.
Also I find it funny how you rank Plato high and critize Machiavelli for his supposed illiberalism and yet ignore that fact that Plato's ideal 'republic' essentially detailed a regimented caste system.
He shows much zoomer traits💀
When the whole point of the video is so that you can trash jordan peterson 📍
@@shonnansan7355 and when even that was trash💀
@@shonnansan7355 “hE tAlKeD sHiT aBoUt tRaNs PeOpLe aNd qUeStIoNeD sOmeThInG sCiEnTiFiC! bUt hE gIvEs mEn gOoD aDvIcE, sO oVerAlL i DOnT lIkE hIs wOrDs sO i pUt hIm iN f tIeR.”
@bitter saint
Well, keep in mind that the city with a caste-system, (described after Book 2, after he'd already proposed a healthy/perfect city) is just a strenuous attempt to appease Glaucon's insistance/desire for an opulent city that offers meat, luxuries, etc. It wasn't what Socrates/Plato initially proposed (which btw he though was perfect and beautiful). Im pretty sure one of the main morals from the Republic is to lead a 'simple living--high thinking' kind of life.
I'm so angry that Marcus Aurelius only made it into A that I'm going to get on with my life and not let it bother me.
Real. (Do not trouble yourself with what doesn’t affect you)
Common M. Aurelius W
Marcus Aurelius doesnt have relevant philosophy for modern everyday men.
@@richardglidden1191 I disagree. But it’s okay for you to think that.
@@richardglidden1191 I entirely disagree, but nonetheless you can hold your own opinion
I can’t believe bro exclude the absolute chad that is Diogenes
Yeah, I was waiting for him but he never showed up.
"Go away! You're blocking the sun"
He's too good for this list
Diogenes himself was not bother however already being dead, the narrator said.
All the normies play fair games, I play intentionally badly made game (b-game), im so quirky and not like the other girls
This is great bro. Would have been even better if you'd given us estimations for how much you think they could bench.
lmaooo
Good musician, good commenter… many such cases
plato doing 4 plates easy
Based Comment 🗿
@@tens0r884 How do you think he got the name?
In high school the other kids recognized my superior intelligence, so much so that everybody called me "a Kant".
This needs more likes
LMFAO
U have congenital problems
LMAO
bump
I think people usually misunderstand Machiavelli, he doesn't say go and be evil for shits and giggles. He is saying that if you are a goody two shoes and your rival is a ruthless person that will do anything to win he will win.Therefore good people should know how to be ruthless too. Or evil will always win.
Ty, atleast someone read machiavelli. He categorized hate, fear and love in this order:
Love at the bottom, hate in the middle and fear on the top. The ability to instill fear is important for "pacifist rulers"
@@MrEvldreamr Machiavelli says it is better to be both feared and loved.
Whether he did mean it like that or not. That's a good rule to life by.
@TimeUp Yes but if you can’t do both and had to choose one he says feared is better.
i believe in the goodness of people
Oddly fitting in absurd that the absurdist dies in a car crash with a train ticket in his pocket
You ever read a full book by any of the philosophers you mentioned? 😂
Probably didn't even read a single work from some easier works such as Sartre or Camus considering that there are literally NO eastern philosophers on here.
@@PeruvianPotato being and nothingness isn't exactly an easy read from my experience 😆
Machiavelli wasn't actually a bad guy. In fact his work was published to the public. It was in essence a "deep dive" into the mind of a ruler, to expose to the public the dark realities of politics
@Black King lol
@Black King i’m moderate and i think he’s a definite F tier as well
@Black King And you’re a troll trying to spur fire from a hole. Worst yet you probably don’t even have a political view. You just want interaction. A view less clown.
@Black King cause hes just saying things other people have already said better, just with a kermit voice
@Black King youre a fan cause youve never felt the touch of a woman, checkmate rightoid
The underlying factor to rank each philosopher was really the likelihood that he would go out for beer with them
absolutely valid
Just like the US presidency.
Yes
@@tretretre1111 This is not even a joke
@@tomasmonzon207 As a philosophy major, pretty much agreed.
I mean let's be real - the fucking degree is useless, but if you want to talk about some deep stuff after a couple of beers there aren't many people who can rival philosophers, lol.
This video proved to me that there is a huge difference in reading philosophy and understanding it. Sokrates A tier, Machiavelli D tier, Kant B tier, Hume S tier and a whole bunch of absolutely outrageous takes makes me think this tier list is a 100% meme list.
Praying for a part 2. It would be awesome!
"Nobody in their right mind would want to work for a Machiavellian"
yet most of us do
I just thought the same while watching this video
Via Modus Tollens, it follows that most are not in their right mind. Which is true.
Just because you work for someone doesn't mean you wan't to, sometimes you have to, to survive
Sociopaths and psychopaths have an easy time being ruthless and cheating.
@@krowflin4468 and being ruthless and cheating is what gets you far in this system sadly
Tell me you’ve only read intro to 20th century continental philosophy without telling me you’ve only read intro to 20th century continental philosophy
💀💀💀💀
😂😂😂
Thank you for this comment. Now I can go to sleep happy
Bunch of philosophy majors in the comments 😂
stop he's dead already
Actually very interesting, thank you
Narrator: this philosopher has literally been responsible for creating everything we know on this earth and we won’t exist without him, but he said mean things about women once during a time where that was the norm so that’s gonna move him down to C tier
I don't think any of these philosophers would support transshit so urm basically all F tier
On the contrary, two marks of a great thinker are attempting to be right and also attempting to do no harm. Take Kant, for example. Kant's views on race are a quintessential example of someone who did not even bother traveling to other places before labeling other people as inherently inferior, and obviously not considering the potential harm of calling entire groups inferior before even meeting a single one of them. Socrates, on the other hand, is famous for taking the time to actually demonstrate that slaves -- contrary to the overriding views of his contemporaries -- actually can do philosophy themselves. Not only did Socrates exhibit great effort in trying to be right, he clearly worked very hard to avoid doing harm. He exerted himself tirelessly to question commonly-held beliefs at the time in the service of being right and of doing no harm. Kant, however, embarked on neither effort while writing about race, to a disastrous effect that could have been prevented by him merely attempting otherwise. In short: being a great philosopher is not necessarily about writing great works of intellect -- though that can be part of it. Being a great philosopher is all about the way you live. After all, philosophy since the very start of it has been a tool for living excellently. And yes, it is fashionable to say these days, ("oh, some of the most evil people in history have attempted to be right!") Well no they haven't. And it's actually rather obvious that they haven't, if we examine the question through good philosophy. This of course is where my own philosophy comes in. Taking Stalin as the classic example of someone who is said to have attempted doing right while actually doing grave wrong, this supposed goodness-attempter did not facilitate open dialogue on what was "the best way forward". And similarly, while writing about race Kant didn't bother to facilitate open dialogue with the races he wrote about. This is a fundamental error intentionally made by both men. Obviously, open dialogue is the only way to actively attempt to be right and to actively attempt to do no harm. Our dialogue must be maximally open. Supporting views like slavery, political repression, racism, genocide and misogyny aren't just intellectual positions that have been dominant at different points in history -- they were only ever supported by people who actively failed to incorporate others into their dialogue. Slavers did not discuss their views with slaves -- at least they did not discuss with slaves as equals. Because that would have been uncomfortable to do while remaining slavers, wouldn't it? Political tyrants did not govern based on political ideas crowd-sourced to the general population. Then there would not have been tyranny. Racists did not ask other races whether or not they thought people should be racist -- at least beyond the grotesque parlor trick of asking the whipped butler what he thought of his servitude ("Yes, master! My situation is most desirable! Perhaps as desirable as yours.") The necessity of open dialogue for being an anti-mysogynist is of course equal to its necessity for being an anti-slaver and an anti-racist, but for interesting reasons it's actually a lot harder to be anti-mysogynist (within a misogynist society) even given open dialogue, but open dialogue is still at least necessary for being contrarianly anti-mysogynist. And in any case: the harder that people try to actually locate morality in an open discussion, the more likely they are able to find it. So it's not the moral failings of many past philosophers that make them bad philosophers -- it's the fact that in not exerting a level of morality-finding effort on par with Socrates, they clearly are least weren't as good at philosophy as him, and when they failed to establish even the most basic elements of living needed to find morality -- such as open dialogue -- that is what makes them bad philosophers in that respect.
Mocking feminsts isn't exactly the most moralist thing to do little guy
@@unknownuser9695Why not?
@@user-wp5no6cn2b Well, it literally translates to trying to shut down the voices of thousands of women who have fought really hard just so their successors can have their well-deserved rights and liberties by using shame and gaslighting others into believing they are but woke snowflakes crying about nothing
The only reason Diogenese is not here was because adding an S+ ranking would have made the tierlist impractically vertical.
True
Facts
true
Or because his philosophy is lame and not worth mentioning.
@@giantotter319 No, YOU are lame, random citizen.
This man really just skimmed through the wikipedia pages of a couple notorious philosophers and ranked them based on how many times the word racist was written there
If that’s the case Marx would score very low as he was incredibly racist against anyone really. Mexicans, Jews just to start.
It seems only in the West is bad to be racist, every other country in the world loves and protects their culture, society, and borders.
Still manages to overlook aristotle's misogyny in his own teir list of being
I wrote exactly the same comments ten minutes ago but it looks like you beat me too it
@@Zeriel00 when will a loli pfp having, hentai loving western conservative ever have a good take?
The allegory of the cave holds a special place in my heart, it’s the first enduring text I ever consumed and analyzed as apart of my liberal arts class in college, it got me into philosophy and lead the way for all of my philosophical thoughts and my pursuit for truth today
irony of a man who never left more than a few miles outside his home his entire life being the father of "empiricism"
Machiavelli wasn't a Machiavellian, he didn't support what he wrote in the Prince, he just wrote down what he saw in the average royal. It can also be seen as a Satire akin to how to become a successful dictator 101
I suppose it could also be seen as akin to the 48 laws of power
That is not the case, according to historian Will Durant. He supposedly professed admiration for those rulers who portrayed the traits described in 'The Prince'.
@@omegacardboard5834 I'd be surprised if that book didn't die past our generation. It's incoherent garbage.
@@alvarojneto there's a difference between 'admiring' and 'agreeing with'. for example, i do appreciate jordan peterson and Ben Shapiro, but I don't like them at all. Machiavelli supported the Republic, and wrote mostly in favor of it. he lost that war, and only after gave that book as a gift. to this day, for the reason mentioned above, it's ain't clear what was the real intention, even if the perceived one is supportive to cruel monarchy
I am glad someone actually mentioned this, it was not a tool to power but rather a warning
"Socrates is where it all began". Thales glares at you, then goes back to crushing grapes while counting the drachmas pouring into his estate thanks to his primo vintages.
I think Thales would crush todays stock market
@@Cloudbutfloating I’ve always thought Thales would be such a good finance bro if he was alive today haha forget predicting eclipses, he’d be a monster with technical analysis 😂😂
Thing, is Thales along with people like Anaximenes, Anaximander, Heraklites, etc. is considered a natural philosopher. These guys were mostly focussed on the question of arche (greek: beginning). They were more like scientists than what we would consider philosophers.
@@thomasmann4536 but science answer more than philosopher
@@werren894 That has nothing to do with the original question but thanks anyway.
To crux of why people don't like this tier list ordering is mainly because you had "personal likeability" as a factor. A philosopher/artist should only be judged based on their work, not on their character
+ you completely butchered Machiavelli's representation
this was perfectly ridiculous and I enjoyed every minute of it.
this list makes me believe that there is a gap between reading philosophy and understanding philosophy
More like gap between reading wikipedia articles about philosophy and understanding philosophy
Very true, I mean Jordan Peterson is a prime example of this
How did it take a tier list to get you to realize there's a gap between reading and understanding? I know the basic premise of an Orion propulsion system. Does this make me a world class physicist/engineer?
100%..!
If I hold a philosophy book and don't understand anything, I put it down and consider reading it after months.. probably I could've been a Hegel reader in a couple days and brand myself as "the only guy who read Hegel in the whole class"
@@cezela7693 sir. I am very interested in philosophy. I've seen multiple animes and read quotes...that was my start. I do know that many people love Diogenes. I like him too.
Where should I begin with ? Whom should I study first ? Should I study the Classical golden trio first or who ?
Your this comment made me feel that you are well read individual. Do tell please. 🙌🏻
The fact he said Marcus Aurelius may be a bit of a prick who would "tell me to stop overindulging in things" was quite funny to me, given Marcus himself "made" the Quote "be tolerant with others but strict with yourself"
Marx in A tier told me everything I needed to know.
True but remember what he’s RANKING them
1.influence
2.HOW MUCH I AGREE
3. IF I WOULD HANG OUT WITH THEM
his bias is set
@@C0RR0 well yeah more modern philosophers are less influential, he is surely a socialist, and he basically says this one is racist I don’t like him. Everything made to classify the philosophers is dumb
@@Guts-the-BerserkerCome on man, why have this blind hard stance on Marx?
@@mynameisjeff869Marx was a punk who spent half his life trying to disprove Max Stirner, and nobody can even say for sure if Max Stirner ever even existed 😂 Karl Marx is a century old lolcow 🤣my question to you would be why listen to a German loser from over 100 years ago? Why not take Philosophy from people that actually accomplished things instead of losers who hung out in German debate clubs 😂
Late to the party but solid video with many memes and lot of great info/insight for a philosophy noob like myself.
"Kant was a great philosopher but he is racist, racism is not cool guys. B tier"
©🤓
Like, how many of these philosophers were black. Lmao
One aspect of his ranking I found a little bizarre was that he founded his perspective of the philosophers by modern ethics. I think it’s more fair to contrast a person’s morality with their time or “zeitgeist.” It would be unfair to presume Newton wasn’t very scientifically gifted because he couldn’t predict Einstein’s discoveries.
I totally agree
Agreed.
when did he do that?
the only time he kinda did that was when he said it was a bummer that de beauvoir signed the petition against age of consent
@@renarddubois940 He did it with Schopenhauer
Agreed. It’s like saying the Egyptians weren’t ingenious because they had all they needed to invent the lightbulb and didn’t. Yet we in the 21st century can’t agree how they built the pyramids. I personally don’t mind rejecting philosophers due to bias. I would put Marx in F tier because I believe his “philosophies” lead to the deaths of well over 100 million people in the 20th century alone.
A philosophy tier list is already stupid, but Kant and Hegel being B-tier is just sending me.
Fr
Hegel has no business being above Schopenhauer, but agreed on on the list.
Hegel and Kant are below marx💀
Also Nietzsche being in the same level with Plato and Aristotle is hilarious
@@thomasfischer9259 Disagree on that, but agree that this list is cringe
descartes in the same tier as freud is wild
I disagree that they shouldn’t be in the same tier, but they’re both heavily underrated in this video
It would be nice to see a tier list of Eastern philosophers.
Same, Confucius is an S tier philosopher and it's not even close. Lau Tzu and Taoism as a whole isn't my cup of tea but I get why some people resonate with him. (And we don't talk about Legalism.)
@@doctorbobcat7123 Actually I'm rather fond of legalism, but not to the extreme that the Shihuangdi took it to.
@@alanfriesen9837 That's a first for me. May I ask why you like Legalism?
@@doctorbobcat7123 I like legalism because it is egalitarian. Everyone is treated the same. It's actually been an important aspect of China's governance for thousands of years, but was usually subordinated to Confucianism which stresses that everyone has a place in society that they must recognize and act accordingly.
The Qin dynasty is the the dynasty most associated with legalism, but the problem wasn't legalism itself-but rather the extremely harsh punishments meted out to those who broke the rules.
@@alanfriesen9837 Interesting point. while I think you're right about the egalitarian aspect of it, the issue is that everyone is equally mistreated. (If you weren't royalty.) This naturally builds resentment that resulted in uprisings the moment people sensed weakness in the government, the fate of the Qin is in my opinion the likely conclusion of any legalist state. Hell, most of the key Legalists (Han Feizi, Shang Yang, Li Si) ended up killed by the very authoritarian states they advocated for. Those who live by the sword, die by it and whatnot. That's just my thoughts though.
Fellas honestly what else did you expect from a guy that made a one-hour philosophy tier list video. Honestly it's on you for expecting anything else.
😂
I expected the ideas of the philosophers to be debated and not their personal beliefs or lives.
Damned be us because of postmodernism.
Man, how I hate academia.
They want to burn the rich, lets start with bringing about destroying academia.
/thread
Yeah but why is RUclips promoting it?
"if you expected good information and accuracy that's on you" - ironic person who never expects anything because he thinks he's above it all
lol fk off lol it's not a high bar to hold someone to
This is the most Reddit philosophy starter pack
These Redditors should go back to r/femboys and stay there
Puts Marx in A tier...
@@augisr1877 where he belongs
@@augisr1877 I don't have time to watch it, does he do it based on his opinions or if said philosophers actually had any decent ideas.
@@tillburr6799 Marx had a good understanding of human nature and the relationship between rich and poor but his solutions were kinda retarded
Not sure what the point of rating philosophers is when half your criteria has nothing do with their philosophies.
I propose to make list based on:
1. Ground breaking aspect (revolutionary ideas)
2. Influence (academic and practice)
3. Relevancy (stood the test of time)
4. Applicability (in real life or realms of ideas)
Marx instant S
@@codenamepyro2350doesn't pass relevancy and applications
@@NotChinmayi I would say Marxism is quite relevant, and has been applied and is applied
@@NotChinmayi He is beyond relevant today, the entire capitlaist system is opposed only by different offshoots of Marxism (and luddism I guess)
As for application, I missed anarchism or objectivism having even a single country experiment. Marxists had several and got plenty was learned from it. Applicability isn't a on/off switch.
Go ahead make that list. I guarantee you put your own favourites at the top and those you don't like at the bottom based on no criteria other than your biases
RUclipsr creates a video that he himself describes "an arbitrary hierarchy of personal preference" and that he thinks ranking philosophers is "pretty silly thing to do" and people lose their minds in the comments and fight to be perceived as the superior intelectual. This is fun!
It's like none of them actually watched it 💀
I mean the iceberg is okay, but the way he advocates whether something is wrong or right and trying to paint a picture like its a objective truth is ugly
He put the communists in B tier, and the modern day Socrates in F.
Kind of tattling on himself as having a single or perhaps double digit general intelligence. So yes, showing the world what a filthy degenerate inbred retard you are is pretty silly.
Yh I really liked it. Clearly very knowledgeable and gives cool insights.
Maybe ppl should go make their own tier list if they're so but!hurt about this one.
@@pallaskedisiCokiyi yeah, it's absolutely disgusting when he advocates for things he believes are right. He should've made a 1-tier tierlists about physical formulas to avoid falling in obvious and embarrassing subjectivities
Singling out Schopenhauer for racism seemed fairly random given his company on this list…
It was probably the most jarring racist because how how seemingly progressive his philosophy was
Funny because he was against slavery
not justifying racism in any way, but times were different then. from a modern perspective 90% of people of the past were racist
No mention of Marx's antisemitism
@@sylvester5022 he's tame compared to others. This guy also got a lot of other stuff wrong.
The fact that Confucius didn’t even make it on this list is why I can’t take it seriously.
Man really put Marx with Socrates and saw nothing wrong with it
You know, Marx is really fun to hang out with. Perhaps because he wasn't racist or so.
@@benrex7775 He was very anti-semetic.
@@benrex7775 .....Who's gonna tell him
word
This list could only have been made by an intellectual cripple.
Kant = B tier Nietzsche = S tier
Alright that's enough internet for today
Nietzsche wrote for particular people. Kant on the other hand was involved in universal rethoric. I am not surprised of your comment after all your account name is even complementing your understanding on the matter.
So small amount of individuals will use properly Nietzsche's insight while the kantian worldview is just like a secular religion- for everyone, yet for no one- a belief in a common ideal
He said he wouldn't hang out with him that's why he's putting him in B🤦🏽♂️
@@angelostanojevic304 Yes. And who would? A bitter - misogynist - whiner. Nietzsche on the otherhand, would be great company, he had a nifty mustache and was a mad man.
they are the two most influential philosophers after (in the chronological sense) descaretes, so nietxsche is def s tier
I didnt watch the video yet Im sure its dumb though lmao
He’s right tho LMAO
Like and Subscribed because of the Tier List introduction.
7:10 Machiavelli's "The Prince" was written in reference to the Medici family who exiled him from Florence. It's not a guide book; it's a political satire and a warning.
The Prince was, in essence, a job interview. This is obvious from the dedication itself, as Machiavelli ingratiates himself to Lorenzo de Medici and tries (and fails) to curry favor with him.
The interpretation that it's satirical only works if we consider The Prince and nothing else Machiavelli wrote. If we read his other works, like Discourses on Livy and his letters, it's transparent that he really thought what he wrote down in The Prince.
This tier list didnt tell who is better as a philosopher but about the person who made this.
THIS ☝
You mean like all teir lists???
Wow, you are a sharp guy
Machiavelli needs to be higher
@Viet Tran And the guy literally said this in the description AND in the video.
Oh, yes, from Marcus Aurelius directly to Machiavelli, 1400 years of nothing in philosophy huh
I'm completely uneducated on the field but let me have a shot, that's where the majority of highly influential Christian philosophers reside, am I correct?
@@xxassassimxx the majority of christian philosophers reside in the Middle Ages but the majority of philosophers in the Middle Ages weren't christian, at least not in the High Middle Ages
@@duqueadriano0081 I strongly disagree with your statement
@@intelektual7678 ok.
@@intelektual7678 how so?
as a german I reject the notion to apply the title of philosopher to marx
Calling people awful cause they were racist when it was commonly accepted is a pretty moronic thing in the future people will likely look at us the same way when it comes to primates if we can do something with things like neurolink and they can communicate to us like any other human .
"I tend to sympathise with most of Sartre's politics"
We already noticed
He sure does love himself some underaged chil- I mean sexual liberation.
Kinda, eh, complicated since comes from someone that was "married" with Simone de Beauvoir. I'd be very careful analyzing his philosophy and even more agreeing with it since a tree is known by its fruits, therefore a philosophy is known for the way it was applied in life
@@davipenha he did an apology for him...
In the english world you know he was an pedophilie with his wife simone de beauvoir?
on god lmao
I can't complain about this list, since OP himself already made clear this list is out of merely personal preference, and *absolutely* not out of real philosophical criteria.
“Real philosophical criteria” Philosophy is just mental pornography. Just ideas to have fun with in the mind. It can only be personal preference.
@@550xxx23 Isn't mental pornography just... actual mental pronography? But anyways, you are totally right. Since what you probably learned as Philosophy in school was modernism, that indeed is pure danderism. But any human being that comes in contact with the work or real philosophers like Aristotle, Leibniz, Thomas Aquinas, will experience what is the pinnacle of human knowledge capacity.
You know what I meant by the analogy. I never took any philosphy classes. Anything remotely related to "philosophy" is what I have seen from life experience and psychedelic experience which is the ultimate teacher. Once you speak a "philosophy" it distorts the original understanding. All language is a distortion of ultimate Truth, thus all philosophy is just for mental stimulation. Nothing accurate is being said.
@@550xxx23 Based on that dogma good Sir, what you have just stated is false.
what is a real philosophical criterium?
the fact that jordan peterson is considered a "philosopher" makes me fucking disappointed
philosopher is ''a person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.''. I dont think that you feeling dissapointed can change that he is a modern philosopher
What is missing is originality. Everything modern is just a regurgitation of what has already been set forth by the originals just adapted and manipulated for modern pussy generation problems .. Just like everything else.
Camus popularising the Sisyphus meme and not hitting an S tier is a crime against humanity
Redditor: “Ayn Rand gets F tier for being homophobic.”
Every philosopher listed before Ayn Rand: *sweating intensifies*
greek philosophers
@@PopPopPopPop ancient greek were pretty much homophobic
@@PopPopPopPop socrates was homophobic, it's one of the reasons he was tried
NPC USamerican comment
@@droggellord 👆Ladies and gentlemen. I present to you, the most socially coherent redditor.
Machiavellian methods are very present in today’s international relations. His philosophy dictates the whole world.
That is because the world dictated his philosophy.
it reminds me of high school days, when you didn't know anything about philosophy and machiavelli seemed like an ultimate/amazing philosopher
@@user-iu5pe7xz2j He isn't the ultimate philosopher. His method of philosophy however has been highly influencial, because it is a method of analysis, rather than a worldview. He doesn't speak to higher powers, or use veiled language to hide his true aims, he just looks at what works, without drawing from what 'ought' to be.
@@tomdip2094 He was important in the philosophy of politics and law yes, but he was not as influential as other philosophers such as Plato or Aristotle. His method was typically early Enlightenment.
Wasn’t Machiavelli a satirist? Much like Dante’s inferno, his book was meant to criticize the view he saw amongst powerful people. At least this is what I recall.
He was sentenced to exile on pain of death if he returned and was given a good amount of time to leave, and then didn't.
Kierkegaard below Marx should be a source of great shame.
Heidegger: *supports the Nazi party like most of Germany at the time, ends up being critical of Hitler during the regime and Nazism in general later in life*
This dude: "He was undoubtedly a piece of shit"
Sartre: *signs both a petition to remove age of consent laws and an open letter asking for three pedophiles to be let go, and never walks it back*
Also this dude: "Hold up, let's be charitable"
Wait i didn't know about the letter,can you go into more detail.I'm interested
Uh oh you’re gonna flip when you hear about his black book
@@callmemeta9724 Yea.....the more I learn about Sartre the more I seem to be dissapointed in him.Which is a shame because i got into existantalism because of him.
@@don860 He also waffled against part of his philosophy during the end of his life, basically abandoned his atheism because of nauseating it made him feel about death. "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
Which ended up causing friction with his "partner" she even called him senile and wrote some pieces against him.
@@notana.i9423 Parthner*
Sartre and de Beauvoir never actually married.
Machiavelli did write The Prince but if anyone reading this is interested in a deeper look into Machiavelli's actual thoughts on things like policy (his platform and the like) you should look up his Discourses; The Discourses on Livy in particular demonstrates that Machiavelli isn't as Machiavellian as people make him up to be; guy was actually a classical Republican and realist, the latter should at least explain why in his works, like The Prince, he is honest to the point of brutality.
I immediately knew this guy just read his wiki when he started talking about machiavelli. He completely misrepresented him.
"The Prince" was written as a satire on the actions of the Borgias. Old Niccolo was indeed a republican.
@@Laocoon283 Not just Machiavelli sadly...
@@Laocoon283 Frankly even if you accept that the Prince was him speaking from his heart, I hate this idea that the book is somehow innately evil. Having actually... you know... read the damn book, Machiavelli doesn't write it as a moral treatise, but a purely amoral, practical one. He even admits in the book that isn't concerned with right or wrong as much as he is concerned with detailing his own observations on what an *effective* Prince would do. Not a *good* prince. An *effective* Prince. Ultimately, the Prince itself is a work of Political Realism, coming from the foundations set by Thucydides.
This moronic idea that because the book isn't "liberal" it is automatically bad is just so painful to me.
@@Killzoneguy117 having read the prince a few years back, I never came to the idea it was evil. Amoral sure but definitely not evil
good tierlist, I agree
didn't know we had so many top tier philosophers on the Internet 🤙
I dont yet understand philosophy but I love how he just bases his tier list on if he would like to hang out with them
he is a casual and a leftist. go figure.
he is a casual and a leftist. go figure.
to be fair, no one really "understands" philosophy. We all just have own our opinions of reality. A philosopher's goal is to justify those opinions, just as you do. That being said, you're no more or less valuable than all of the great thinkers of history
@@brayden8843 That's a very ignorant thing to claim. All philosophers should understand philosophy. Philosophy isnt about justification at all.. its purely about thinking and expressing those thoughts and holding discussion with them.
It’s actually not because although philosophy has great thoughts and great things come from it some of those of the people listed didn’t even study straight philosophy and had amazing takes such Wittgenstein who originally didn’t start off studying philosophy and Sarte who originally began his career doing playwright and being a novelist with that being said they are very influential today And then you have people who actually studied in the field as a career from the beginning and came up with bullshit or being a fuccin hypocrite Such Ayn Rand and Alan Watts who contributed nothing to the aspect of philosophy or were hypocritical of their own sayings you are right. “Philosophy isn’t about justification” but how could anyone with sense hold a conversation with someone being a hypocrite or them convincing you something that isn’t complex to fathom nor having a explanation for it ??Philosophy is purely thoughts that can be discussed, closely examined, debunked, or Proven to be true.
If you ever encounter a society where all the philosophers agree, then you have found an Orwellian dystopia.
If you ever encounter a philosopher that is wrong and stupid, they are in the F tier. BRAAAAP.
Nope you're wrong (you'll thank me later)
You lost all credibility when you said "orwellian"
@@jackredfield5993 I gained credibility when I said orwellian.
@@philv2529 using the namesake of a writer who happens to be a rapist, racist, and fervent defender of imperialism is already a bad look. nevermind that his work was uninspired and never even conceptually innovated on anything so the term "orwellian" doesn't even make any sense. The only reason you know of him as an influential writer is because Britain and the CIA heavily supported the distribution of his work and integration in to the school system, so yes this all shows your media and historical illiteracy.
"A few months after giving lessons to the queen he developed pneumonia and died"
Actually 5head strat to get out of having to teach the queen.
that was fun
Such a shame this video was less educative due to its subjectivity because it has such great tempo, editing and overall knowledge. Unfortunately, some important facts are left out while other less important facts are heavily showcased.
@@andersondalmeus1406 I am talking about the information chosen to be showcased for every philosopher, not the individual rankings.
@@andersondalmeus1406 because we should hope to base our opinions on the relevant facts?
@@andersondalmeus1406 There is room for debate in what standards we should judge philosophers by, but how the creator of the video is doing it is blatantly lazy and unsophisticated
Also, don't forget that Nietzsche is S tier, which completely disregards all opinions. But other philosophers were muh bad because muh raycist and wehmens rights, but a literal nazi but worse: "I dont have any problems with his ideas"
His take on Ayn Rand was just plain hilarious honestly
"Kant is bad cuz racism bad" is such a redditor argument
Well thats one way of saying “I’m racist!”
@@yeezercheeser2189 if you aren't racist, you are mentally deficient
@@0mnislasher1 your sheer ignorance and stupidity shines a bright beacon upon you that will diminish with time and decomposition
@@yeezercheeser2189 found the redditor. "Yeezercheeser2189", remember it so you can be reminded to disregard everything he says, as he clearly has no higher brain function for the purpose of critical thought
@@akalichamp7030 racists are coming out of the closet like clockwork!
I don't get why people are so mad at this guy. When I click on a tier list video I immediately expect it to be subjective not objective.
Because his subjective oppinion is retarded
@@einhelm5270 it's still his opinion tho and he is allowed to state it. Isn't philosophy also about discussing ideas?
@@Hydro8609I agree that philosophy is subjective but there is also an objective element present in it , for example putting karl marx above schopenhaur and kriekegard , clearly shows he isnt ranking philosophers on their ability to think , but rather on whom he politically agrees with . Thats the epitome of lameness to me .
You must've watched all of the Michael Sugrue videos, because I recognize a lot of his examples and phrases in these videos (especially the Machiavelli bit).
Machiavelli wasn't a blood-thisrty bastard. He just said that the prince should do everything he must to preserve the state. That's why Machiavelli is one of the founding fathers of political realism. Stop hating on Machiavelli, we don't even know if his work was honest or just a satire criticizing the ways of the political leaders of his time (specially those of northern Italy, where he lived most of his life).
Analysing the political reality of Machiavelli's circumstances, the political chaos in Italy, foreign occupation and his own allegiances, it just doesn't fit that he wrote such a coherent thesis on how to be an effective ruler as a shitpost. Even IF it was meant as satire, it isn't a refutation of the merits of the philosophy.
'The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom' by James Burnham is a very good book on it.
Machiavelli if anything is B tier
As a huge Kierkegaard fan I want to save his reputation from the crudeness of this video.
First of all, one of the most important facets of Kierkegaard's writing is his use of pseudonyms. Each of SK's pseudonyms has different philosophical beliefs, are at different stages in intellectual and spiritual development, etc. So to say SK mocked women's liberation is outright wrong, because it wasn't SK, but one of his pseudonyms. If you think this is a reach, or that I'm somehow misconstruing this in any way, there's a nice Dera Sipe essay, 'Kierkegaard and Feminism: A Paradoxical Friendship', which takes this point a lot further than I have here. There are plenty of calls for sex-equality in SK's pseudonymous work, including his mockery of women's nature.
Secondly, this video has misportrayed Either/Or. The dichotomy is between the aesthetic and the ethical, as is common throughout SK's writings, however the religious life is a subgenre of the ethical life. One can very easily choose the ethical life while not being religious. More egregious, though, is the mischaracterisation of rationality and what the aesthetical is for SK.
The aesthetical life is one of *only* pleasure seeking, one of never doing anything that one does not want to do. Clearly, this aesthetic life is one of continuous distractions from boredom. Kierkegaard illustrates this point not unconvincingly in the text, mind, and he comes to the conclusion that anyone radically aesthetical would commit suicide as permanent escape from this boredom. But everyone reading this comment has not commit suicide, so they are unconvinced by the aesthetic life's boons. Then, we are thrust into the ethical life, where, as SK would like, we might find God.
Finally, we touch upon rationality. SK doesn't believe in rationality, he makes this clear in fear and trembling where he mocks (epistemic) scepticism and the commercial philosophers who are selling worn wares. SK believes in three things (and their opposites): the absolute, the universal, and the individual. SK believes the renunciation of rationality is the precursor to faith and hence the optimal life. The knight of infinite resignation is one who has renounced rationality and embraces life sine qua non. To illustrate this with a quote, SK says when discussing Abraham's journey to Mount Moriah: 'there could be no question of human calculation'. That is, one cannot even think whether one should think in any given moment.
my boy soren deserves some love definitely
Kierkegaard S tier for me on influence; probably most underrated philosopher of all time
Stop you’re making me dislike Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard and Kant and Descartes should be S.
While I'm not crazy about Kierkegaard, this is a better summary of what his whole deal is.
This video is a great example of philosophical illiteracy.
The wild thing about the trial of Socrates that you didnt mention, is that he actually DIDN'T try to argue his case whatsoever, even though he had a level of rhetoric that could have easily gitten him found innocent, he decided to stand his guns.
The Prince, isnt actually about how to be ruthless and a dictator. Its the psychology of the mind and how to manipulate the masses. Its better to be feared than loved is a basis of the book but also how to make a working society while thinking ahead of the politics that could hurt him in his rule. He also encouraged others opinions and to consider them himself to make rational decisions. There is so much more to Machiavelli’s books aside from fear and tyranny.
I'm pretty sure this guy has never read the book as well: 'its safer to be feared' is the actual quote, develops Machiavelli's argument far more considering that distinction. Purposeful misquotations of that line have been used by OP and multiple others to box machiavelli into 'crazy dictator guy' without looking at what he's actually saying. Not to say Machiavelli's philosophy, even considering this aspect, is in any way actually positive for the common people's lives, but simplifying him is still an injustice as well.
Yeah, in a sense machiavelli is a better psychologist than peterson lol
Yeah, it feels like people like to hate on Machiavelli because it's cool or something. But he's rather nuanced and logical in his writings. Yes, they can be brutal at times, but so is the world of influential people, especially considering that Il Principe is basically a compilation of historical anecdotes with commentary.
'The Prince' is nothing more or less than the most succinct book on statecraft there ever was or will be.
This.
The way I understand Machiavelli is, ruthlessness is one of the tools in your toolbox. If you are planning to be a ruler, you better learn how to use it and use it well, because your enemies will not hold back on the account of morals.
What you then _do_ with that ruthlessness, is entirely up to you. By all means, you should strive to be loved, and seek to make your subjects' lives better, but you must also know how to wield fear, because rulers who are feared can afford not to be loved, but just being loved will not save you from those plotting against you. It's less of a book about how to _rule,_ and more about how to _stay in power._
Tell me you are biased without telling me you are biased. The clickbait of the thumbnail is pure gold. I agree in some of the rankings, but most of them are most important to society than what the video gives credit.
Biased? Seriously? He’s ranking philosophers on whether he’d hang out with them. His goal was clearly not a rigid ranking of influence/legacy.
@FUQ CENSORSHIP STASI why?
@FUQ CENSORSHIP STASI I get you, but I find no need on reporting it. Even if the one who post it is wrong, they deserves to share their opinion.
@FUQ CENSORSHIP STASI So the channel “Fuq Censorship” didn’t watch the video and instead reported it based solely off the thumbnail in order to get it removed? No sense of irony huh.
huh... yes, people are biased. You especially, from the looks of it - what's the matter? Are you mad he dunked on your beloved Jordan "thick mommies and trans people bad" Peterson?
Tell me you haven't read Marx without telling me you haven't read Marx
what you didnt mention and it is quiete interesting is the fact that Kant at the end of his life changed his views on race, abandoning his racist ideology
Putting Marcus Aurelius in “A” and Descartes in “C” is an insult to Philosophy
Title
The philosopher tirelist ❌
The WESTERN philosopher tirelist ✅
there is no such thing as non-western philosophy. Eastern philosophy isn't philosophy, it's non systematic, just theology and stuff
@@EnergyExilehuh
@@EnergyExileconfucius?
lol@@EnergyExile
@@EnergyExile Baaahhh, hundreds of Chinese philosophies during the Chi'in Dynasty, and you're acting like only western philosophy exists? "Eastern philosophy is just theology?" are you kidding me? The WEST has always been theistic, China's replacement for religion was (and still is) PHILOSOPHY..
Putting Sartre and Beauvoir in A tier while putting Heidegger in D tier was it for me, this has to be a meme.
Putting Hegel lower than Marx is the same.
Wrong
@@Samura1313 Marx is the worst thing to ever happen to philosophy (I’m a capitalist). Hence why this list sucks balls. You can’t possibly hope to rank philosophers, because philosophy is *all subjective depending on what you believe*
Sartre and Beauvoir should be S imo
I stopped watching when I heard the word racist for the 5th time. In every other country and place in human history it was ok to be racist and protect your culture except in modern day America. Now if you're white and don't worship every other race except your own you're called a racist.
Earned a sub by putting Rand in her place good shit
I would love to see a writers tier list video
This guy just opened r/philosophy, saw the most popular opinions, made a wikipedia research of those authors and made this tier list.
I’m curious. I’m not too heavily into philosophy. Not involved in internet discourse about philosophy either, what would improve this video?
@@louvdon nothing, all these people act as if he is illegitimate just because they disagree with him politically. Philosophy has so many different aspects and viewpoints because it is exactly subjective, which prove them (the people in the comments) to be hypocritical.
The RUclipsr is serving his opinions on his understanding and moral compass and everyone's head is exploding that he doesn't agree with them.
@@chamberv5261 I definitely agree with you. I understand he might have a more surface level understanding of philosophy but so does everyone in the comments. The internet is designed so that knowledge is more easily digestible. I guarantee 95% of people calling this guys video shit and saying he gets his ideas straight from r/philosophy are extremely hypocritical.
I thought the video was well put together
@@louvdon You basically spot those people by their opinion on Jordan Peterson
@@louvdon You are ranking this video by being contrarian towards the commentators.
2 out of 3 factors in criteria are how much he agrees with them and if he would want to hang out with them… that really shows it’s gonna be a incredibly good tier list 😂😂😂
Yeah so strange of him to make a tier list based on subjective variables am I right guys XD
@@2FadeMusic can’t tell if you are being sarcastic
@@maticsimonic9673 poor thing
@@justagoose7741 ?
@@maticsimonic9673 he is
Strong minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Weak minds discuss people.
~Socrates~
means absolutely nothing thanks bro
@@genevax3606 😅its always a thing of interpretation
@@darthrevan2959 sure and the way I interpret it is: it's a meaningless facebook quote that Socrates probably didn't even say, meant to make "philosophers" think they're smarter than they are
@@genevax3606 Why?
@@darthrevan2959 so we shouldn't discuss dictators and let them be? Wise indeed
Would love a second part with Filosofers like Bakunin,Rousseau, Hobbes or even Diogenes, That would be a blast!
a pickle for the knowing ones enthusiast i see
I sincerely believe that Kierkegaard deserves to be higher up on the ladder.
@@brian5001 "Intentional ignorance" lmfao, you clearly can't comprehend any of kierkegaard's literature
No
Satre’s just better, kierkegaard fell of +ratio
@@repvv - Sartre is highly discredited nowadays. He mostly appeals to artistic types and the like. His ontology quickly came and went.
@@evangelium5376 could be, im not too educated on the more “recent” philosophers. I think kierkegaard is pretty interesting though, especially his writings on love and the unsustainability of it.
You miss that Socrates was given the choice to accept exile or drink the hemlock.
He chose his end.
better to die well than live unwell
He also was given 6 months to just leave.
>machiavelli
>uses the prince a book which he denounced and was a work that was both commissioned of him, but was also satirical
>doesnt use The Discourses on Livy
22:16 "with his intense stare and incomprehensible writing style" iconic description
Putting Simone de Beauvoir in A-tier is quite hilarious.
He’s a marxtard. Expect the dumbest shit.
De Beauvoir and Ayn Randt on the list… but no Arendt wtf?
@@TheBro47 Bruh why would you put Arendt on the same level as those two? She never has the luxury of writing from a somewhat distant past nor did she have a particularly strong impact (at least as far as I know).
@@koetimoep I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, I would put Arendt way higher than those two.
Are you suggesting Randt and de Beauvoir are more impactful than Arendt? She is arguably the most distinguished political thinker of the 20th century.
Enough internet for today. Have a nice whatever you have.
At the same time kierkegaard in C
you people in comments couldn't think your way out of a preschool pamphlet. duncan himself said before the tierlist started how biased it was going to be, and you get mad at how biased it is. he probably didn't attempt to fight his own bias cuz he considered it a waste of time, so instead embraced it. i suppose monkey see monkey do after all
yes thank you for saying that finally somebody said what I was thinking
Actually ancient philosophy starts with Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and many others before Socrates. Some of them, like Democritus and Empedocles, are essential to understand Aristotle's doctrine.
this was my first thought, like bro did you read Logos Rising?
Heraclitus, too.
My man, democritus was not a presocratic
Well, I agree with you mostly, but you don't have to know the earlier philosophers like Demokritus to understand Aristoteles (And Sorry, I am German, I prefer K over C :) .
I learned about Aristoteles first and studied him a lot because he interested me. And once I later learned about the Philosophers that he learned from like the above mentioned I DID better understand where Aristoteles got his ideas from, but I don't necessarily think it bettered my understanding of Aristoteles doctrines in itself.
I think they are pretty clear on their own. But of course, a bit of knowing where he got his ideas from is always good to maybe extrapolate on them.
@@chinaboytag1Heraclitus underrated, good on you for the callout.
Of all the schools of philosophy i have found interesting and relatable, Albert Camus is the one that ticks the most boxes for me. I used to be a big fan of schopenhauer and nietzsche, but as soon as i heard of absurdism, i instantly realized that with some minor mental gymnastics, i can allow myself to feel better about my life without having to rationalize the irrational.
Absurdism is the light at the other side of the abyss that is nihilism.
Honestly, this tierlist is totally subjectively. There's no way Marx, Sartre, Simone de Bouvoir, etc, is on the same level as Socrates. After this video, we all know you have preferences to the marxists philosophers, and that's fine, it's your video, you do whatever you want with it. But man, you could've made an analysis based on the relevance and the influence that all the philosophers on the list have on society and through the history of our civilization. Not just simply judging them by your own personal view. Socrates (and Plato as well) taught us the fundamental bases of our west philosophy more than two thousands years ago. Those marxists philosophers have their relevance on criticizing capitalism and the problems within this system, but there is no way this is near to what the classic philosophers did.
And Jordan Peterson does not consider himself as a philosopher, but a clinical psychologist. You just putted him at the thumbnail to caught the attention of more people, that's a clever but not honest strategy.
Watch 5:00 again, butthurt bro
Sounds like bitter Leftist leanings.
There is no way Simone de Bouvoir and Sartre are on the level of Marx
Marx literally changed how we discuss things like history, historiography, culture, power dynamics, and more. It wasn’t just economics and the capitalist system, it was how everything relates to systems in general. Even if you don’t agree with Marx he definitely influenced most philosophers after him. And Jordan Peterson talks about a lot of philosophy, making him eligible for a philosopher tier list.
@@Prodigi50 Marx changed how simpletons discuss things and elevated envy to a philosophy.
Big Marcus Aurelius fan. One of my favorite stories is a friend saw him running out of the palace. He asked where he was going and said "to the philosophers to learn what I do not yet know." And old and seasoned leader and still had that humble thirst for knowledge.
@@dingbatdeliverer6067 Curiosity isn’t a sign of ignorance. I can’t say the same for comments such as yours, however
@@dingbatdeliverer6067 We got it, you're 15
@@dingbatdeliverer6067 you cant offend a stoic lol he legit doesnt care
@@user-mx7qp9ls3o care enough to comment
@@dingbatdeliverer6067 who asked
Everyone here dissing Marx has probably never read him 😭😭
Does anyone know what the word "bigotry" means anymore? At this point it means "Anyone that has a differing opinion than me".
Btw there is some serious disservice done to machievelli in this video. His Discourses on Livy is possibly one of the most important and yet least highlighted of his phenomenal range of beliefs.
Machiavelli , is one man I would love to hang out with.
He also left out how Machiavelli gave advice to people who wanted to be moral rulers of good will while working in a world of power dynamics and ruling over subjects.
Exactly. Machiavelli was a republican, and very reasonable at that. People only read The Prince and think he's some Carl Schmitt type figure.