Are there any great non-western, non-Asian philosophers? (Jews + sand people soecifically)

[Harry Powell]

I’ve been listening to a bunch of western philosophy lately. 3,000 years of brilliance.

I’d like to review the works of any great Jewish or sand-person philosophers.

Do they exist? Any recommendations?

 

[Harry Powell]

Nice soecifially, stupid

 

[Dog Eater]

How about some women philosophers while you’re at it?

 

[Turry Fawks]

Jesus
Solomon
Paul

 

[SensibleKeks]

 

[Faggot Boqposter]

Do you mean philosophers who were Jewish or Jewish philosophers who were philosophers of Judaism? If it’s the former there are tons of em.

Also depends how you define philosopher..

 

[Toast]

Non-Western? But West is the Best.

Thomas Sowell is the greatest living Philosopher.

 

[Sue Lightning]

@NewJersey.gov comment? I know you’re probably an encyclopedia for Middle Eastern philosophers.

 

[Harry Powell]

Do you mean philosophers who were Jewish or Jewish philosophers who were philosophers of Judaism? If it’s the former there are tons of em.

Also depends how you define philosopher..

The latter one.

 

[NoBacon]

Philosophy is worthless.

Read CS Lewis.

 

[RoTheHo69]

Non-Western, Non-Asian.....
So Bantu, Pacific Islander, or a Fackin abbo?
1. Ice Cyaaaaaub
2. The Rock
3. The inventor of the boomerang.

 

[Turry Fawks]

Philosophy is worthless.

Read CS Lewis.

WWAWD TAG, though?

 

[Faggot Boqposter]

The latter one.

Then i have no idea. Id rather watch compound media than learn about Judaism

 

[quasi101]

WWAWD TAG, though?

Tag is for retards. What are you going to recommend van til and bahnsen next?

 

[Queefer Sutherland]

They were all Greek homos.

 

[Turry Fawks]

Tag is for retards. What are you going to recommend van til and bahnsen next?

It makes people really mad but they don't really provide an argument

 

[Harry Powell]

They were all Greek homos.

Why do you think I’m interested?

 

[quasi101]

It makes people really mad but they don't really provide an argument

You mean why tag is stupid? Because it basically is just bad from the start. The interlocutor just switches from an internal to an external critique. The "impossibility of the contrary" is a deductive assertion. But that means you have to essentially disprove all other philosophical models.

For example I can just say that transcendentals are platonic forms that don't require a mind. And the common argument tree for that is to then switch to an external critique. Something like "but platonic forms do not stand in causal relation and thus can't interact" .

But in the platonic worldview they don't need to be. So you see how it just switches from internal to external.

Unless you mean a different formulation in which case I'm listening.

 

[Turry Fawks]

You mean why tag is stupid? Because it basically is just bad from the start. The interlocutor just switches from an internal to an external critique. The "impossibility of the contrary" is a deductive assertion. But that means you have to essentially disprove all other philosophical models.

For example I can just say that transcendentals are platonic forms that don't require a mind. And the common argument tree for that is to then switch to an external critique. Something like "but platonic forms do not stand in causal relation and thus can't interact" .

But in the platonic worldview they don't need to be. So you see how it just switches from internal to external.

Unless you mean a different formulation in which case I'm listening.

Look buddy I've only got my grade eight, I just like that it makes people mad

 

[RoTheHo69]

You mean why tag is stupid? Because it basically is just bad from the start. The interlocutor just switches from an internal to an external critique. The "impossibility of the contrary" is a deductive assertion. But that means you have to essentially disprove all other philosophical models.

For example I can just say that transcendentals are platonic forms that don't require a mind. And the common argument tree for that is to then switch to an external critique. Something like "but platonic forms do not stand in causal relation and thus can't interact" .

But in the platonic worldview they don't need to be. So you see how it just switches from internal to external.

Unless you mean a different formulation in which case I'm listening.

You sound like you have peanut butter in your mouth. A nyanyanya