For an introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon: Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS Volume 2 Metaphysics US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9 UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9 Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9 Volume 3 Ethics and Political Philosophy US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R

The reason I would put skepticism in S tier is for the same reason you probably put allegory of the cave in S tier. The moral of that story is that you can't be completely certain that your preconceived notions are true in the first place, so we should always be open-minded and make decisions based on suspicion rather than dogma. In the same way as how you might say it's ridiculous to say we could turn into mashed potatoes, the prisoners thought it was ridiculous that the shadows were coming from objects outside the cave. It doesn't mean to actually believe in what you find ridiculous, but to at least not be closed off from the possibility

Every new video, I love this channel even more! One of the best philosophy channels on KZfaq

excellent! that you've given a brief summation of these disparate arguments with your estimation on each one of them is immensely helpful. thanks and cheers!

Soooo good. Really enjoyed. Always been my favourite philosophy channel.

This is awesome. Thank you so much for everything!

Love the work. I really enjoyed this video

What a fantastic video my dude thank you really enjoyed it as someone who considers philosophy a main hobby of mine! Totally agree with the placement of determinism as well its very hard to argue against for sure

Great video, please keep posting!

This is fantastic! Thank you ❣️

I love the list! This is the KZfaq philosophy video I've always wanted. It's going on my favorites list. I agree with the rankings and was secretly glad to see my man Kant up there in the A tier. You know, another good tier list could be the top 20 or 30 paradoxes. Not sure if that has enough substance for you but it could make for a good discussion.

Thank you for your work. After exiting Plato's Cave I see his Theory of Forms right in line with Pantheism and Theological Determinism.

The concept of this video is perfect. I'd love to see more philosophical tier lists

ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND DETERMINISM Consciousness would play an important role even in a deterministic universe. The choiches of human beings happen through a recursive process, in which the mind deterministically generates a thought, and then that though arises into consciusness. Consciousness then becomes a way to observe one's own thoughts and use them as imput for other thought, just like the external objects we observe through consciousness are the imput for thought, so are thoughts themselves. This renders complex decision making more precise, raising survival odds.

I'd love to see another Philosophy tier list video with concepts not featured here, such as Physicalism, Pascal's Wager, and more

This is my go to philosophy channel on KZfaq. Another great video!

Love this channel but I feel like you defined Determinism oddly. Determinism is just the view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. The view that we do not have free will is a potential consequence of the view, but it is separate from the view itself. Compatibilism for example is the view that both free will and determinism exist. (Of course you know all this, I just think it should be clarified that Determinism isn't just a stance on free will).

Love the new format! Can't wait to see more videos

Do you accept stage 1 of the contingency argument (Josh Rasmussen and alex pruss version) that there is a necessary existence which explains the Contingent Reality?and do you think our universe is contingent?

Ray Kurzweil argued for the "singularity", or that we are in the knee of the curve. Given the explosion of LLMs, machines that can pass the Turing test, machines that can improve their own code; how confident do you feel in your ranking of the Simulation Theory? If the argument that progress is logarithmic rather than linear is true, do your rankings remain the same?

Great video!

If you ever do a video like this again in the future, here are some ideas I would be interested to know your ranking of: panentheism, emanationism, metaphysical voluntarism, panpsychism, property dualism, eternal recurrence, vitalism, process philosophy (Whitehead), egoism (Stirner), cosmic nihilism (as opposed to individual nihilism that you addressed in this video), antinatalism, negative utilitarianism, umwelt, antirepresentationalism, rhizome, hyperreality.

Such an outstanding chanel for the popularization of philosophical concepts. I would like you to cover Ayn Rand's philosophy Thanks beforehand. Long live your Chanel..

For the edge lords, I'd expect Nihilism < Skepticism. We can use Skepticism to refute Nihilism (as a 'fallacy of composition'), and Skepticism unto itself can lead to a constructive Bayesian approach to epistemology, as typical for scientific, abductive reasoning that is 'good enough'.

Oh my god I disagree with so many points. I could probably argue for hours about this lol

Love it!

How long does it take you to animate your avatar?

I find it interesting that you have such a preference toward more religious leaning philosophy. Not a bad thing, just didn't expect it!

There are qeuite a few arguments against determinism, but the simples one that breaks it it the mere existance of the Uncertainty Principle

Fascinating!

The problem of evil is not a good argument in my opinion, it just depends on who is answering it. it doesn't really matter what we think is good or evil if we can't prove objective morality. I will go deeper on this if someone asks.

where would you place naturalized epistemology?

Hello. I'd like to ask you a question about 15:19, the continuity argument against Berkeley's idealism (ie why does a candle continue to burn when no one perceives it, or (and I think this is a more general statement) why does something that's in progress of changing continue to change when it's not observed). Why can't we counter this argument by saying that when one dreams during sleep, there can be dream candles, and it's possible to have an elaborate dream (maybe a lucid dream is necessary) where the dreamer leaves the candle for some amount of dream time, and when the dreamer returns, the candle has gotten smaller? Most people agree that a dream is purely mental, and only in the dreamer's mind, so if there's this continuity within one mental realm (the dream), why can't it be in another (ie the "real" world, where I wrote this comment and you're reading it)? Another possible counter argument is that in computer games, there's no continuity problem: if the player turns his back on an NPC who is headed towards a certain direction (therefore no one perceives the NPC, the NPC's image is not actively generated for the player to see it), and the player turns around and looks at the NPC again, then the NPC will have moved along the correct direction at the correct distance (just as if the player had not looked away at all). So if this is correct, there could be a similar mechanism in a purely mental model (of course, if idealism is true, computers are also completely mental, but this doesn't contradict this counter argument, but please correct me if I'm wrong). Do you think these counters work? What's the mistake if they don't? I'd be very interested and happy to read your response. I study philosophy as a hobby and I'm eager to learn as much as I can. Have a nice week.

Awesome!!!!

Emotivism makes more sense than intuitionism. We decide if something is right or wrong because of the emotions it stirs in us. It's like in the KZfaq video when the leopard kills the baboon, but when it sees the orphaned baby baboon, it takes it into the trees and adopts it. The leopard kills because it is hungry and its emotions tell it to chase and hunt, but the same brain of the leopard tells it to have empathy when it sees a baby of another mammal. No abstract philosophy is needed to explain right and wrong in emotivism, just the biochemistry that animals have evolved, it doesn't require some universal morality to be innate just whatever our DNA and life experience cause us to react to, and it covers the flaw you mention in intuitionism that people will disagree about right and wrong, as humans have different DNA, perspectives, life experiences and pyschology. Philosophers and moral activists hate emotivism though as it seems to relugate us to mere organic animals, it clashes with the deontological ethics of most major religions, and it's not pretentious enough to write highly academic books about that makes the philosopher sound very smart and worthy of praise and financial reward.

I feel like our views on nihilism vastly differ. your examples of wizards and aliens don't change nihilism. Even if there was such things, they wouldn't add any value as they are still empirically evident things that are therefore impermanent and therefore have no lasting effect, hence worthless. In addition, those who see meaning through something rational like a God or a soul cannot prove such things others, making the language they convey their beliefs through meaningless, thus making anything both natural and supernatural equally inherently meaningless. So it's an S tier from me 👍

Love this vid

how do you put Aristotle's Theory of Causation in B whilst putting Nihilism in E. These are opposites and so they should be the same category. 1 can't be proven without disproving the other one.

i didn’t know what leibniz’s argument was but when i saw the name i thought it would be about how does an omnipotent god create such a flawed world and expected a semi high placement so i kinda zoned out until i saw it was f and realized it was the exact opposite of what i thought…

You should add a link to "Philosophy Tier List Part 2 - Another 25 Philosophy theories and ideas ranked." too! 😃

Love your work, lost me on Patheism because there are very good objections against it but overall very nice

Determinism is something that I'm not sure about I believe in some sort of compatibleism u have free will but yet thoughts pop into your head that u don't control of or might not want to think about

Do you think our universe is contingent or it's necessary?

In fact, Mackie didn't reject all moral theories's truth, but rather those which purport to be objective. He first establishes that all of our moral statements purport to be objective, but in reality, none of them are (so we are making an error when we think talk and act as if they are objective). In this sense, Mackie would contend that first-order moral discourses are real and observable, but the second-order moral facts/moral values don’t exist because when we believe that moral facts are real, we are generally mistaken.

I am disappointed you didn't rate Taoism. I would rate it a solid A. I live by it. I have to because I get too conscious

Best channel !

As a philosophy enthusiast, I give this video an "S" - indubitably. Feels like in thirty minutes I earned a degree in philosophy. Thank you, Charles Georgiou, and happy 10th anniversary Philosophy Vibe - a home for deep thinkers!

Just my personal opinion but I would literally switch the S and F tiers lol EDIT: Aside from Plato's Cave

Lol you actually nailed it putting 3 of my main philosophies on the S tier. Truly a smart guy. The problem of Evil is actually B tier. Put in Idealism in its place lol.

The main problem with determinism and skepticism is that they can have negative impact on people. Determinism can lead to hopelessness, pasivity and "why even try" approach and skepticism can lead to some irational hypocricies, such as having faith in doubt or being absolutly certain about uncertainty. However, i do believe that knowing these negative impacts may help us to prevent them. Tell determinists to keep trying and tell skeptics to avoid being hypocritical/self-refuting and the problem should be solved (or at least minimized).

Where was contingency argument

Skepticism on F is sooo funny because it just shows so clearly the misunderstanding of knowledge. You will see.

The fact that you put the problem of evil in S tier is so strange to me sense I was never the least bit swayed by that argument as a Christian.

I do think you underrated all of the arguments for God, but I guess it made sense when I saw the PoE/Pantheism in S tier. If you read into the teleological argument, you'll see the power of it. It really is compelling, and appeals to infinity are not enough to dodge it. Overall, a great tier lost though!

I don’t think the problem of evil is S tier. It’s been refuted.

George, please comment on your considerations of Pantheism in the context of the Euthyphro Dilemma. I'd expect that which God (or Nature) commands to be the emergent structures and properties that are constructive, and introducing higher complexity, antifragility, and revealing a deeper meaning. Humanity participates as dissipative structures within nature, and by living in accordance with nature, we can discover deeper meanings as we develop and sustain systems which preserve the health of the biosphere. As such, 'what nature commands' is not limited to the laws of physics or amoral natural selection, but a project which humanity (and other highly intelligent creatures) can participate in. I think this leads to Aristotle 's conception of the good as that which all things aim at: a strictly dominant 'will to meaning'.

I'd put Emotivism D, Nihilism at F, Pantheism at A or B, Existentialism at C, Moral Reletavism at C, Transcidental idealism at S, Functionalism at A, Error Theory at D, and Deontology to A. Maybe simulation down one, but other than that I'd agree for the most part with the list.

How come stoicism is not on here?

your ideas make me imagine you as me except instead of being me you’re a more advanced version of me because i am 15 and have similar ideas to what you have :P

Why no Heidegger and Deleuze?

You are cool but, my favorite character is the guy in the purple shirt. More of the guy in purple shirt , let’s goooo

I would'nt put the problem of evil on the s layer. Without shadow there is no light and as humans we understand our world through comparison and if evil did not exist we would not understand many of the feelings associated with overcoming those evils, which are sometimes the strongest and most character shaping feelings. There is also a difference in how evil is defined by the observer and by the person who experiences that evil. What is seen as evil may shape the person who lives through it, what would Cinderella be without her two evil stepsisters, just a happy horse girl? I am not a proponent of evil, but on a philosophical basis it can be said, that evil, ultimately does not seem to be necessary, but by experiencing it, i.e. tasting it, or just knowing that it exists, it changes us.

What about post modernism?

Good job👌👌

I enjoyed this video. But I think I got more enjoyment from my disagreements than my agreements, haha. I think you were particularly unfair to Nihilism and Existentialism, despite ranking their derivative ideologies higher. I also think you give too much credit to Plato, ignoring how unfounded his active truth claims were. Especially since Skepticism is just the Allegory of the Cave but without the ridiculous premise that there exists a perfect world of ideals which he had no evidence for, yet you ranked them on bottom and top respectively. I also think you give too much credit to Pantheism, and I'd argue that atheists and theists do agree on pantheism, but they both agree that its silly, because that's not what "God" means. Nonetheless I enjoyed the video

The universe isn't a watch or a phone, but it contains watches and phones, so whatever made the universe made all the watches and phones too. Also wanted to mention, the multiverse model places a minimum on the amount of versions of reality in our manifold universe at 2^183!. That's pretty near omnipotent. There should be beings in some of those that can create universes from quantum fluctuations or travel from between versions of the multiverse etc. etc. IF there's no multiverse, then the only alternate allowed by physics (so far) is that our universe is definitely non-deterministic and while it could be totally random, it would be impossible to distinguish randomness from free will at all scales. Another model might be that there is a multiverse manifold in theory, and that free will is simply determining which one we are conscious in, or paying attention too.

I was disappointed at the F for Hume. Imo, there is great value in a proof for uncertainty, and Hume uses a kind of math-based philosophical method. I look at that insight as a mathematical proof, so to speak. And guess what? The most advanced areas being worked on in physics relate to quantum mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. To me, that's a significant insight of that time.

Determinism is what Sartre would call bad faith.

The pantheism take is bizarre ngl

Thamks for producing this engaging video. I suspect you are a skeptical, deterministic, Darwinian, atheist. 🤔😁

Thanks, friends for your help in understanding all the ideology out there.♥🧡💛💚💙💗💜🤎💯🖤

I don’t think that „god is omniscient therefore determinism“ is a S-tier argument. Theists have limited gods omnipotence to what is logically possible so they just have to limit god’s omniscience so that he only knows about what exists and then they can make the following argument. -God knows everything about what exists. -The future doesn’t exist. (Presentism or growing block) -The present does not completely determine the future. (Indeterminism) -Therefore god doesn’t know everything about the future. He only knows likely outcomes. But besides that, how could we even make sense about knowing something about something that doesn’t exist? Even when it comes to god, I struggle to make sense of it, therefore it seems to be a reasonable view. So the theist just has then to accept either (presentism or growing block) and indeterminism.

🚀 'Philosophy Tier List - 35 Philosophy theories &amp; ideas ranked' is just scratching the surface. Dive deeper into the rabbit hole on my channel where we question everything.

where did you get that definition for nihilism? Its not an idea that the universe is pointless. It's the idea that nothing is real because you cant trust your senses. it's where "I think therefore I am" comes from. It definitely belongs in the S tier because its impossible to argue against. All I have is my senses to know reality so how can I prove anything is real without them?

When you realize that no theories about the existence of the abrahamic god even make it into A/S and the ones that do make it into A/S are either in opposition of it, or are neutral towards it :D

ontological argument is easily S tier, its no just anselm, basically, all of continental rationalism and the german idealism presuppose it in one way or another

No philosophy of language theories ?? Any way I agree with your list

I came to this video hoping Berkeley's idealism would not be put below a B, and so, I'm glad to see Berkeley's idealism not below a B!

situation ethics is the most clear f tier ever.

Interesting that you dismiss Hume’s skepticism by saying What’s the point? But you don’t ask the same question about Determinism. The point of Skepticism is that it undermines determinism. It also has led to useful consequences, like Poppers ideas on science and falsification, or even the modern warning, seen everywhere that correlation is not equal to causation. Overall, I enjoyed this, but it seems much stronger on religion and moral philosophy, and weaker on metaphysics and epistemology.

@Philosophy Vibe Really good video but I don’t think the Problem of Evil is S tier, probably c or d tier. I watched your video on it and it seems all your problems with all the theodicies come down to how you prioritise your own understanding - e.g what it means for God to be omniscient or benevolent or omnipotent. God has to agree with how you think, or he cannot exist at all. What is the problem if an infinite Creator exists and operates in a way that does not conform to your finite understanding? The doctrine of revelation tells us that we cannot work out God on our own, and we need to have him revealed to us.

Maybe consciousness is a gift within a deterministic universe that needs to be given away willingly in acceptance and in faith. And that’s the point of it all. Become back part of the whole willingly?

But determinism directly implies nihilism. So why is one an A the other an E?

Determinism isn't quite opposite of free will. The universe could be probabilistic but still not allow agency. Again, how about the idea that the manifold of reality is deterministic, but which path we are conscious of varies.

Determinism should be S tier. You could make the same emotional argument that humans do not have some divine purpose and that might hurt to some, but none the less, it’s probably true, and does not take away from the merit of the argument itself.

Theological Determinism as "S" ? Seriously ? It might be internally consistent, but that's about all you can say for it. It's basically about as convincing as the ontological argument for the existence of god.

For the normative ethics, I'd expect Utilitarianism < Value Theory < Deontology < Virtue Ethics, corresponding to an increased rational capacity. Unconscious cells, bacteria, plants, and animals follow Utilitarianism, and people have autonomic nervous systems to do it in their sleep. Mammals and other creatures who are more influenced by 'kin selection' tend to participate in 'cultural evolution', improvising simple tools and rituals which can be constructive (or if destructive, these rituals are self-inhibiting as these tribes tend to self-destruct). Intelligent people outgrow tribalism by Deontological maxims which value everyone equally as a 'Kingdom of Ends', leveraging abstraction to hypothesize and assess imagined consequences to their choices. Wise sages can apply game theory to discover strategies that are strictly dominant, and thus employ a 'good-enough' model as guided by the Cardinal Virtues (as further detailed by Socrates in Plato's Republic and the Stoics). I'd argue that there exists a certain amount of overlap among the functional components of {Utilitarianism, Value Theory, and Deontology}, and that these are the bounds in which Virtue Ethics resides.

Love the new stuff, but want to know if John is okay? We need proof of life, lol.

I mean the Problem of Evil belongs in the F tier... it almost begs the question in the sense that it is trying to apply human reasonings and morals into G-d's mind, which is absurd to begin with, isn't it? It is a convincing arguemnt only if you look at it from an amotional sympethetic perspecrive, but once you start to break down the logic of it, it assumes the one asking to be a perfect all-knowing being and is one of the easiest argumemts to fight against

Regarding what you said about why explain solipsism bec who are you explaining it to, i had a dream where i was in my living room with my mom and there was a pool in it and then a bunch of cats dived into it and started swimming around in circles under the water. After a while i thought wow they have been down there for a long time shouldn't they have to come up for air? And then i realized, wait a minute, i don't have a pool in my living room tjis is a dream! And then my mom said, no it isn't. And then i said yes it is look ill prove it to you. And i levitated in the air. And then my mom said, that doesn't prove anything i can do that too. But she herself did NOT levitate. And then i said, wait a minute. If i know this is a dream, then why am i arguing with you?!

Nihilism lacks imagination but it seems to be accurate. We all die and we stay dead forever. Arguments against existential nihilism always sound like wishful thinking to me. I'm not a theist but the free will argument seems to win against the problem of evil. Inspiring Philosophy's video on the subject is quite good.

Pantheism S tier? You gotta be joking, kind sir!

If determinism were true, there would be no such thing as a “convincing argument” you would have been forced to rank it as you did. The very fact that you weighed the pros and cons and selected as you did makes that a performative contradiction. Additionally, if determinism were true, there would be no point in arguing at all. You would be forced to believe what you believe, and everyone else would be forced to do the same. There would be nothing right or wrong about any action. Nobody could control their behavior.

Does this classify as vtuber

Where is Stoicism? :o

“I am not a philosopher. The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach. My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing. It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic. Seeing is not thinking. “The sun rises there; if you think about it you miss it, because while you are thinking about it, you are going away from it. In thinking you can move miles away; and thoughts go faster than anything possible. If you are seeing the sunrise then one thing has to be certain, that you are not thinking about it. Only then can you see it. “Thinking becomes a veil on the eyes. It gives its own color, its own idea to the reality. It does not allow reality to reach you, it imposes itself upon reality; it is a deviation from reality. Hence no philosopher has ever been able to know the truth. “All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it? “A philosopher thinking about truth is just like a blind man thinking about light. If you have eyes, you don't think about light, you see it. Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation. “Hence I would not like my way of life to be ever called a philosophy, because it has nothing to do with philosophy. You can call it philosia. The word ‘philo’ means love; ‘sophy’ means wisdom, knowledge - love for knowledge. In philosia, ‘philo’ means the same love, and ‘sia’ means seeing: love, not for knowledge but for being - not for wisdom, but for experiencing.” Philosophy Is the Worst Wastage of Human Intelligence that Is Possible “I am not a philosopher. The philosopher thinks about the truth. His approach is rational. Reason is his instrument, and here just the opposite is the case. I am an irrational man. And the people who have gathered around me - around the world - the appeal to them is my irrationality, because reason has failed so utterly. For three thousand years in the West, ten thousand years in the East, philosophers have been struggling to find the truth, and not a single philosopher has been able to find it. “The way of philosophy does not go with truth at all. It is just rational gymnastics. So one philosopher can argue against another philosopher, and they go on arguing for centuries, but they have not come to agreement on a single point. Philosophy is the worst wastage of human intelligence that is possible. When I say I am not a philosopher, I simply mean that my approach towards reality is not through the head, it is through the heart. “I also say that I do not preach a religion because religion is something like love - you cannot teach it. There is no way to teach love, and if you teach love and somebody becomes trained under your teachings, he may go to Hollywood and become an actor, but he will never become a lover. Your very teaching, your very discipline will be the barrier. So I say I don't teach religion. Religion is something that passes heart to heart, not head to head. The moment religion passes head to head, it becomes theology. It is no more religion.” “There has been a contemporary school of philosophy in Europe called existentialism. I have nothing to do with it. That is only a philosophy, a mind game. These people were talking about existence, but they knew nothing of what it means to be existential. I also use the word 'existentialist' for myself, but the difference between Jean-Paul Sartre, Jaspers, Marcel, and me is vast, unbridgeable. “When I say I am an existentialist, I am not saying that I believe in the philosophy of existentialism. “Birds don’t need philosophy, flowers don’t need philosophy, rivers and oceans don’t need philosophy - but they are all existential; they exist, and they exist with totality and intensity. “I am not a philosopher. To be a philosopher is just to be a 'foolosopher.' It is a sheer waste of time. Down the centuries philosophers have been struggling intellectually to find the truth. Not a single one of them has found it, for the simple reason that intellect and its way goes round and round, about and about, but it never penetrates to the center. “To love, you do not have to be a philosopher of love. Love needs no philosophy; love is an existential experience.” The Most Useless Activity in the World Is Philosophy “Philosophy has not reached to any conclusion and it will never reach - it is an exercise in utter futility. It is a good game if you want to play an intellectual game, an intellectual gymnastics; it is hair splitting. “But I am not interested in it at all - and I know it from the inside: I have been a student of philosophy and a professor of philosophy too. I know it as an insider that the most useless activity in the world is philosophy, the most uncreative, the most pretentious - but very ego-fulfilling, gives you great ideas of knowledgeability without making you wise at all.” Why are you so much against philosophy? “Philosophy means mind, philosophy means thinking, philosophy means going away from yourself. Philosophy is the art of losing yourself in thoughts, becoming identified with dreams. Hence I am against philosophy, because I am all for religion. “You cannot be philosophical if you want to be religious; that is not possible. Religion is existential, philosophy is intellectual. Philosophy is about and about, religion is direct. Philosophy is thinking about things you don't know. Religion is a knowing, not thinking. Philosophy depends on doubt, because the more you can doubt the more you can think. Doubt is the mother of thinking. “Religion is trust, because the more you trust the more there is no need to think. Trust kills thinking; in trust, thinking commits suicide. And when there is no thinking and trust pulsates in your being, in each pore of your being trust permeates you, overwhelms you, you know what is. “Philosophy tries to know, but never knows. Religion never tries to know, but knows. Philosophy is an exercise in futility, of futility. Yes, it talks about great things - freedom, love, God, meditation - but it only talks about. The philosopher never meditates. He talks about meditation, he spins and weaves theories, hypotheses, inferences about meditation, but he never tastes anything about meditation. He never meditates. “Hegel, Kant - these are philosophers; Buddha, Kabir - these are not philosophers; Plato, Aristotle - these are philosophers; Heraclitus, Plotinus - these are not philosophers, although in the books of philosophy they are also called philosophers. They are not! To use the word 'philosopher' for them is not right, unless you change the whole meaning of the word. Aristotle and Heraclitus cannot be called philosophers in the same sense. If Aristotle is a philosopher, then Heraclitus is not; if Heraclitus is a philosopher, then Aristotle is not. “I use a totally different word, 'philosia', instead of philosophy. Philosophy means, literally, linguistically, love for knowledge. Philosia means love for seeing, not only for knowledge. Knowledge is not enough for the real enquirer; he wants to see. He does not want to contemplate on God, he wants to encounter God. He wants to hold His hand in his own hands, he wants to hug and kiss God! He is not satisfied with the concept of God. How can the concept be of any help? “When you are thirsty you cannot be satisfied by the formula H2O. Howsoever right it is - that is not my concern, that is irrelevant - right or wrong, the formula H2O cannot quench your thirst. You would like water, and whether you know about H2O or not does not matter. For millions of years man has been drinking water without knowing anything about H2O, and it has been perfectly satisfying. “Philosophy talks about water, religion drinks.”

13:37 Without evil there can be no good, and if there can be no good there can be no god. How do you define evil when you say there is no good?

where is dialectical materialism , seems karl deserves a separate own space out of some tierlist , op karl , lu my guy

Way too hard on skepticism! It's a compelling epistemological argument. Lazy to put it in F tier I think, as well as Nihilism in E tier. You seemed to put them there because they don't make you feel good rather than on the strength of the supporting arguments. You didn't really argue against either. And surprising that you put solipsism so high. I see solipsism as a type of skepticism.

As someone who adores Leibniz' idea of the best of all possible worlds, I feel personally attacked! Jk lol but I think many people misinterpret the idea as did Voltaire, for example, when he wrote "Candide". It's not about this world being absolutely and completely amazing or something like that but being the best of all POSSIBLE worlds. And if we consider that God might have wanted to create self-conscious, free-willing, autonomous creatures, then I think this limits the amount of possible worlds tremendously. You'll need some sort of consistent natural laws which let people actually choose A when they chose this way (there wouldn't be much will and autonomy involved if A or B happened randomly or independently whether I chose to do A or B; so God can't always intercept any and every bad action and event) and which at the same time allowed for the emergence of such a species (e.g. having extremely low entropy at the beginning of the universe which is a quite unlikely property for the universe to have as Roger Penrose argued in his book "Cycles of Time", or having some sort of violent and competitive drive to make evolution happen). So, maybe this actually is as good as it gets.