Five arguably most important works of 20th century philosophy.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

My friend and i decided on the list below last night, but we're just dabblers; the list is based on reputation more than our reactions. Anthologies aren't allowed, and we wanted to cover as much ground as possible (here: phenom/hermeneutic etc, existentialism etc, religion, linguistics, political).

Heidegger - being and time
Sartre - being and nothingness
Williams james - varieties of religious experience
Wittgenstein - tractatus
Rawls - a theory of justice

seem about right?

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:15 (nineteen years ago)

YOU FORGOT AYN RAND

― milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

Every Thing I Ned to Know I Learnt In Kinder-Garten

― Dr. Alicia D. Titsovich (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:18 (nineteen years ago)

Dianetics

― latebloomer aka freedom williams sr (latebloomer), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:19 (nineteen years ago)

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/adamrsbeales/200px-Bogus_Journey_2.jpg

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

actually this is an occasion where i have to say OTM

― latebloomer aka freedom williams sr (latebloomer), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:37 (nineteen years ago)

Every Thing I Ned to Know I Learnt In Kinder-Garten

Hmmm.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:38 (nineteen years ago)

isaiah berlin - two concepts of liberty

― friday on the porch (lfam), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

what's most important, blah blah blah...?

my take, as a sort of tour of 20th cent continental philosophy, my five favorites or "best" would be way different.

Heidegger -- Being and Time
Sartre -- Being and Nothingness
Lyotard -- The Postmodern Condition
Adorno and Horkheimer -- Dialectic of Enlightenment
Husserl -- Logical Investigations (maybe)

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:40 (nineteen years ago)

would love to squeeze in derrida but there's no single great "work" and his place just doesnt seem quite so seminal or revolutionary, as great as he can be.

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:41 (nineteen years ago)

You'd substitute Lyotard for Wittgenstein? Lyotard's most consequential ideas are borrowed from or inspired by Wittgenstein.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:48 (nineteen years ago)

yeah but that book is a seminal book, influential, widely read (more widely read that Witt, etc), that's my reasoning anyway. i dont much care for Wittgenstein!

plus i stuck with continental side and Witt strikes me as sort of peripheral to that tradition, at least outside of top 5.

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:50 (nineteen years ago)

but obviously you gotta go with Philosophical Investigations. yeah maybe that's a better choice than Lyotard. I dont know! this is too hard, i give up!

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:51 (nineteen years ago)

and The Question Concerning Technology, but it seems damn stupid ot put two heideggers in a list of 5. oh well.

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:53 (nineteen years ago)

from an ananlytic POV probably

betrand russell - Principia Mathematica
wittgenstien - tractatus / philosophical investigations
wvo quine - Two Dogmas of Empiricism
saul kripke - naming and necessity
david lewis - Counterfactuals

― acrobat (elwisty), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:56 (nineteen years ago)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/2707303070.08._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

the tractatus is art

and derrida is sort of a troll..

― dar1a g (daria g), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

Waking Life
American Beauty
Apocalypse Now
Taxi Driver
Donnie Darko

― milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 21:07 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

― dar1a g (daria g), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

Dude, you can see in 360 degrees in your dreams.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 21:11 (nineteen years ago)

poortheatre pretty much otm, but i'd sub badiou's being and event

― Hoosteen (Hoosteen), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000006TRV.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 21:34 (nineteen years ago)

Definitely Philosophical Investigations over the Tractatus.

― sydz (sydz), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1878424319.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:23 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think I'd put Sartre anywhere near a list of "great" philosophy works, but maybe "important" insofar as he's one of the most famous 20th-century phiosophers.

― max (maxreax), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:26 (nineteen years ago)

Philosophical Investigations thirded? fourthed? I don't think you need Heidegger and Sartre in a list of 5, I'd prob'ly go for Heidegger of the two. Deleuze/Guattari would be tempting but surely Anti-Oedipus rather than Mille Plateaux? I'd still want to put Derrida on the list but like ryan said, which book? I'd take Rawls in a twofer with Nozick's Anarchy, State & Utopia. I think Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic is a contender, too.

― God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:30 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0106/010906pua.jpg

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:34 (nineteen years ago)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1570425035.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:35 (nineteen years ago)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0743250974.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:36 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.treehouseministry.org/books/Chicken%20Soup%20for%20the%20Soul.jpg

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:37 (nineteen years ago)

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0000AIZ63.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:37 (nineteen years ago)

I think Varieties of Religious Experience kinda sucks.

PI over Tractatus any day.

But I haven't read enough to be qualified to answer this one.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:38 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

You missed this shite:

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/24/0517084724.jpg

― God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:39 (nineteen years ago)

gilles deleuze is pretty alright

― Apple Juice (Apple Juice), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 23:27 (nineteen years ago)

austin: how to do things with words.
dewey: how we think
mead: mind, self, and society

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 00:03 (nineteen years ago)

i think if you're doing a list of "important" works you cant leave off Sartre, practically all french philosophy after him is in some way a response to him, pro or con, acknowledged or not.

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 00:21 (nineteen years ago)

Philosophical Forum poled philosophers (continental and analytic, I believe, though probably analytic would have been better represented) on what 20th century philosophical works they thought were most important, but I don't have that issue handy at the moment. I think all of the works in the first post were inclluded, except possibly the James.

― R_S (RSLaRue), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 00:22 (nineteen years ago)

being and pie

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 00:26 (nineteen years ago)

Philosophical Forum poled philosophers

lol

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 17 January 2007 00:32 (nineteen years ago)

i think if you're doing a list of "important" works you cant leave off Sartre, practically all french philosophy after him is in some way a response to him, pro or con, acknowledged or not.

I don't know that I'd necessarily argue that; certainly, some of them were, but they weren't just critical but more or less incredibly dismissive of Sartre's work (I'd argue that most French philosophy of this century is a response to either Heidegger or Plato). It's hard to find postmodernists (or really anyone) who take Sartre seriously. Even Heidegger considered Being and Nothingness a misreading of his own work. The real "importance" of Sartre, I'd think, would be the popularization of philosophy.

And as for a work of Derrida's, I'd think Grammatology is probably his most well-known and widely-read, and contains most of the themes that he would expand upon throughout his career.

But I'm a lit nerd, and I tend towards the "crit theory"/continental end of this spectrum.

― max (maxreax), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 00:34 (nineteen years ago)

i wd think william james is routinely filed under "19th century"
(varieties of religious experience = 1902, but wj's dates = 1842-1910)

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/071195299X.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1057193164_.jpg

― S- (sgh), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 01:19 (nineteen years ago)

It's hard to find postmodernists (or really anyone) who take Sartre seriously.

true, but note they felt compelled to comment on it! everyone who wants to be anyone in french philosophy has to define themselves in relation to sartre.

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 01:37 (nineteen years ago)

i think if we didnt have to be so confined to the supposed genre of philosophy we could include people like gregory bateson, niklas luhmann, george spencer-brown, humberto maturana -- people who are not strictly speaking philosophers but have a lot to say about it i think...

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 01:39 (nineteen years ago)

THE COMPLEET MOLESWORTH

― the killfire konspiracy (Haberdager), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 02:56 (nineteen years ago)

This is quite lit-crit/continental-based so far. I think Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a contender, the Frank Kogan thread on Kuhn on ilx is great, some of what Kogan says is really OTM. It's been a little while since I've read it, but I remember A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth & Logic being really dogmatic and not really having anything new or interesting in it at all. Philosophical Investigations has got to be the one safe pick.

― Ogmor Roundtrouser (Ogmor Roundtrouser), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 03:34 (nineteen years ago)

i agree with the kuhn nomination

― friday on the porch (lfam), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 03:47 (nineteen years ago)

I regard Satre as I regard the Beat writers, more of a cultural happening, than having a lasting written work. It's a dead end with Satre as with the Beats. Mt list would be more along these lines

Maurice Blanchot- "The Infinite Conversation"
Georges Bataille- Summa Atheologica: "Inner Experience", "Guilty", and "On Nietzsche"
Alexandre Kojeve- "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on Phenomenology of Spirit"
Antonio Gramsci- "Prision Notebooks"
Simone de Beauvoir- The Second Sex"

Althoght I'm not well read in ananlytic theory, so this is a one sided list. I see these books as having importance in their actual influence, even if they aren't widely read.

― Jacob Sanders (LolVStein), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 04:25 (nineteen years ago)

what about wittgenstein? Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

― Latham Green (mike), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 06:10 (nineteen years ago)

if we were just doing the past ten years or so i suspect some laclau or somesuch wld have to be there. maybe pickering?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 06:20 (nineteen years ago)

ZiZek!

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 06:22 (nineteen years ago)

what about wittgenstein? Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

i've only read the blue and brown books but i thought it was shit

Jacob Sanders more or less otm

― am0n (am0n), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 06:27 (nineteen years ago)

xpost Zizek? ARE YOU MAD? No way.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 10:00 (nineteen years ago)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0664222226.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 10:04 (nineteen years ago)

Wittgenstein--Tractus...
Arendt--Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Derrida--On Grammatology
Discipline and Punish--Foucault
Said Orientalism

would also take:
Levi Strauss: Raw and the Cooked
Sontag: Against Interpertation
Phillip Aries--Centuries of Childhood
Black Skin, White Masks--Fanon
Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious--Freud

(i am thinking of a huge slew of works by kristeva, butler, cixious, spivak, barthes, dyer, etc that are impt to me, but i am not sure are vital to the rest of the world)

― pinkmoose (jacklove), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 12:38 (nineteen years ago)

lacan maybe too

― pinkmoose (jacklove), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 13:00 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think much of what Foucault wrote was philosophy per se.

― God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

im not sure why the wiki link is there, raymond, i kind of know him, i think that by re-examining the utopias of people like bentham or hegel or kant, making them distopyias, and working thru history as a system of signs, etc, were more philosophical tasks then historical ones--like arendt and her rexamining of reportage, sontags work with lit crit, or strauss' raw and the cooked with anthro...

there are a lot on my list that are liminal, b/w philosophy and something else, that said, i think that one could make the arguement.

― pinkmoose (jacklove), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 13:18 (nineteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

― acrobat (elwisty), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 14:01 (nineteen years ago)

lacan is psychology

― am0n (am0n), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 14:11 (nineteen years ago)

... and not that essential in my opinion.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

I think that if we can agree to define analytic philosophy as philosophy and continental philosophy as clunky poetry, we will begin to have a coherent conversation on the topic.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 14:27 (nineteen years ago)

If you are to ask philosophical questions about language, are you not doing Philosophy? And by language, I'm including practices of it, such as poetry.

― Jacob Sanders (LolVStein), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 19:32 (nineteen years ago)

If you are to ask philosophical questions about language, are you not doing Philosophy?

I'm going to vote "no". Philosophy as an approach for answering, rather than for asking.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

Fuck, I was afraid "poled" was wrong, but attempt to double-check didn't go far enough. I have a horrible time with double letters.

― R_S (RSLaRue), Thursday, 18 January 2007 02:12 (nineteen years ago)

I think we should agree to define analytic philosophy as fake science.

― max (maxreax), Thursday, 18 January 2007 03:00 (nineteen years ago)

Haha, I knew this thread was going to have to deal with the elephant in the room eventually.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 18 January 2007 03:05 (nineteen years ago)

I haven't read Zizek's Parallax View yet, but as I understand it's supposed to be his big "systemic" book, so that's worth a look.

― Hoosteen (Hoosteen), Thursday, 18 January 2007 03:12 (nineteen years ago)

r.i.p. philosophy

― am0n (am0n), Thursday, 18 January 2007 03:58 (nineteen years ago)

I was hardly suggesting it's one of the "most important works" or anything, just saw dood mentioned upthread and thought I'd plug the book.

― Hoosteen (Hoosteen), Thursday, 18 January 2007 04:12 (nineteen years ago)

i had class with peter unger today. and then in my next class i was assigned one of his essays. do you think he's actually influential, or is this just NYU philosophy eating itself?

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Thursday, 18 January 2007 08:34 (nineteen years ago)

i finally read the arendt eichmann book last year and i don't see it as 'philosophy' at all. it's a work of political/historical commentary.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 18 January 2007 09:20 (nineteen years ago)

I'd go with Sartre and Witt's PI for definite. One of Kripke/Lewis should be in there (I over-romanticise Lewis for being bonkers and into trains, though, so I probably shouldn't pick). I'd be tempted to put Derrida in, too. Haven't read Heidegger's Being and Time yet, but I'm aware enough to realise that you probably can't get away with leaving this out.

Also, I do an analytic philosophy course, but I'm willing to FITE anyone who claims that continental philosophy 'isn't philosophy'. (Although having said that I do think some of Anthony's choices are moving too far away from what philosophy is and into being dedicated sociologists/psychologists/lit-critics.)

― emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 18 January 2007 11:10 (nineteen years ago)

antony how is 'against interpretation' philosophy?

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 11:11 (nineteen years ago)

or 'orientalism' ffs?

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 11:31 (nineteen years ago)

oic this thread is full of things which are not philosophy (or, if they ARE, so is everything)

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 11:32 (nineteen years ago)

i partially gave myself an out there, by saying i was interested in things that moved from the liminal spaces b/w other disciplines and philosophyand my list is kind of full of that.

i didnt want to get into the analytic/contentintal fite, because i think that its a matter of what ever gets you thru the nite, and also there are works that are impt, etc that are neither (ie sontag or arendt)

the three that have caused the most trouble i guess are arendt, said, and sontag. i note arendt and her history/skill at reportage, but i think that she moves from there, and into some fairly important questions, that are philosophical in nature ie, how do we process evil now that the tecnocratic state has made it not a matter of theology but mechincal effiency, i also think how one gets to the question is vital, and if we are considering most important, where it went after that. with arendt, she went thru answering that question using the tools of western european philosophical tradition, in this way, her studies with Hedigger,Benjamin and Aron suggest she thot not in reportage or soc or even the theology she got her degree in, but in something different. (or to put it another way, i find something vital in how one can go from a new yorker assignment to a complete and total revival of kants ethics, and as for impt, maybe she wasnt the first person to do this, and i dont know if this is philosophy,but to take the topology of monster, and move it away from the things that go bump in the nite motives of the nazis, or the glamour of shiny jackboots, and talk about how its none of these things, its just there, doing its work)

said takes the entire history of europes realtionship to the east, and reverses it, so he talks about it not in terms of history, but histography, competing signs, ontological violence--i dont know how that isnt philosophy, he isnt talking about the history itself, but the compelteing narratives of signs that gird and destabilize the history at the same time.

sontag was trained asa philosopher, and she wrote: "what I have been writing is not criticism at all, strictly speaking, but case studies for an aesthetic, a theory of my own sensibility". i dont think that aesthetics can be contained by the kind of systematic approach that analyitics propose, and also i think that aesthetics is more universal than others--in the synthesizing of high/low, historical and current, etc, she finds an approach that threads thru what both sarte and barthes have to teach us.

― pinkmoose (jacklove), Thursday, 18 January 2007 12:22 (nineteen years ago)

I think most reasonable people can agree on Jim Brown in any listing of the five best running backs in NFL history, but partisans of Gayle Sayers are hampered in their arghuments by his relatively short career, causing him to have far less impressive career statistics than many other halfbacks, while the mere mention of O.J. Simpson, despite his overwhelmingly impressive career and single-season numbers, is sure to raise hackles on all sides.

― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 18 January 2007 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

Jim Brown = Kant
Gale Sayers = Nietzsche
O.J. Simpson = Fichte

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 18 January 2007 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah Orientalism is definitely a work of philosophy (see his Foucauldian discussion of the dynamics of power/knowledge), and even though it can be derivative and sometimes wrong-headed, there's no denying that it's one of the most influential works of the last century.

― max (maxreax), Thursday, 18 January 2007 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

no, wait:

Jim Brown: Kant
Gale Sayers: ???
O.J. Simpson: Nietzsche (inarguably great yet divisive, crazy)

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 18 January 2007 15:44 (nineteen years ago)

i don't think it's philosophy, and i don't think foucault is either. when has history writing *not* been formed by current trends in other disciplines?! foucault and said are as much historians as philosophers. the dynamics of power are the meat and drink of history.

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think I fit in to your theory world
Foucault and Althusser, Lacan and Husserl..

― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 18 January 2007 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

i think i just don't like philosophy, in the death, if these guys are philosophers.

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

hmm....i think of Heidegger as the last real philosophy (possibly even Nietzsche)--after that, however, it differentiates and fractures into a lot of different sub-disciplines, just like everything else in modernity.

so the problem with a list of important 20th century philosophical works is made a problem because philosophy simply ceased to exist in a coherent form anymore sometime in the 20th century.

it's tough for people like me, still of a philosophical mind, because i want to suggest people like Lacan, Niklas Luhmann, Derrida are all philosophers even against their own wishes...but i dont think id insist on that coherence anymore at this point my intellectual life. (Id love it if i could think of myself as contributing to Peirce's idea of a convergence of knowledge at some point in the future, but that's too far off at this point, and it all seems to be going in the opposite direction.)

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 18 January 2007 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

ryan otm, hence Heidegger's The End of Philosophy. Between Heidegger and Wittgenstein, many if not most of the philosophical concerns of previous centuries were radically realigned. It's hard to talk about "philosophy" anymore.

― max (maxreax), Thursday, 18 January 2007 16:23 (nineteen years ago)

i think of Heidegger as the last real philosophy (possibly even Nietzsche)--after that, however, it differentiates and fractures into a lot of different sub-disciplines, just like everything else in modernity.

Eh, tell it to Aristotle, right? Used to be, cutting up frogs might count as philosophy. But now it's just grubby science.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:23 (nineteen years ago)

I mean are you telling me Foucault doesn't love wisdom? Because, you know, you might be onto something.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:25 (nineteen years ago)

Foucault knows that Wisdom is just another big stick that the powerful use to beat on the weak, innit?

― God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

Foucault loves himself some big sticks, though, amirite.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

We all love a big stick now and then.

― God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:31 (nineteen years ago)

Bravo for The Infinite Conversation. It's more art than science, but what art.

Derrida and Foucault are both more a method than an idea, and lack the Major Statement Chef d'Ouevre, which turns it into pick the one you want.

Sartre gets smaller and smaller the farther away you get.

Bourdieu might be an interesting dark horse in all this. Durkheim kinda misses the cutoff, but might be an interesting ringer as well, though of course I'm veering outside of philosophy proper.

Kuhn's a great call.

Wittgenstein OWNS.

― hearditonthexico (rogermexico), Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:40 (nineteen years ago)

wittgenstein has to rank as one of the five "most important" philosophers of the century. it's not entirely about favourites here, but about throw-downs and paradigm shaping.

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:57 (nineteen years ago)

haha, throw-downs

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Friday, 19 January 2007 19:42 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.