Aristotle might die on the spot from the shock of having the light switched on.

Socrates might say, "2500 years later this is the best we can do?"

"I always said that nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of humanity. How right I was!!! Immanuel Kant

Hegel said "'the rational alone is real' and this is REALLY AWFUL".

Camus immediately pulled out his pistol and shot himself.

Hahaha Great wit in your answers there. Really enjoyed that. Got anymore?

Nietzsche would probably just do all the new drugs..

Nietzsche would be an MRA railing against how feminism has made untermensch of all the men of glorious European blood allowing even the Oriental savages to dominate us economically, probably pointing at gays and transwomen as evidence of that.

Leibnitz would say ours is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire, like Pierrot, would die of a truth-taking tickle.

Nietzsche would be Trump's Rasputin.

:point:

Camus immediately pulled out his pistol and shot himself. — Bitter Crank

:cheer:

Heidegger would be forced by multinationals to give up his shepherding for a factory farm of Being.

Nietzsche would be an alt-right troll and Putin supporter?

Why?

That makes no sense.

Ask Pfhorrest

He'd be right, of course.

I missed the “?”

I am guessing some people are holding onto the longstanding misrepresentation framed by his sister. I guess if you only heard some of his select quotes in passing you could easily get the wrong idea. The ‘superman’ idea certainly was adopted by Hitler, but in a rather perverse manner.

"It is impossible not to recognise at the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey; the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory; this hidden core needed an outlet from time to time, the beast must get loose again... "

"Which of them has been provisionally victorious, Rome or Judæa? but there is not a shadow of doubt; just consider to whom in Rome itself nowadays you bow down, as though before the quintessence of all the highest values—and not only in Rome, but almost over half the world, everywhere where man has been tamed or is about to be tamed—to three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (to Jesus of Nazareth, to Peter the fisher, to Paul the tentmaker, and to the mother of the aforesaid Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome is undoubtedly defeated. At any rate there took place in the Renaissance a brilliantly sinister revival of the classical ideal, of the aristocratic valuation of all things: Rome herself, like a man waking up from a trance, stirred beneath the burden of the new Judaised Rome that had been built over her, which presented the appearance of an œcumenical synagogue and was called the “Church”: but immediately Judæa triumphed again, thanks to that fundamentally popular (German and English) movement of revenge, which is called the Reformation, and taking also into account its inevitable corollary, the restoration of the Church—the restoration also of the ancient graveyard peace of classical Rome. Judæa proved yet once more victorious over the classical ideal in the French Revolution, and in a sense which was even more crucial and even more profound: the last political aristocracy that existed in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, broke into pieces beneath the instincts of a resentful populace—never had the world heard a greater jubilation, a more uproarious enthusiasm: indeed, there took place in the midst of it the most monstrous and unexpected phenomenon; the ancient ideal itself swept before the eyes and conscience of humanity with all its life and with unheard-of splendour, and in opposition to resentment’s lying war-cry of the prerogative of the most, in opposition to the will to lowliness, abasement, and equalisation, the will to a retrogression and twilight of humanity, there rang out once again, stronger, simpler, more penetrating than ever, the terrible and enchanting counter-war-cry of the prerogative of the few! Like a final sign-post to other ways, there appeared Napoleon, the most unique and violent anachronism that ever existed, and in him the incarnate problem of the aristocratic ideal in itself—consider well what a problem it is:—Napoleon, that synthesis of Monster and Superman."

Genealogy of Morals

What is your point?

Some really great answers here! Funny and insightful.

@I like sushi these are just opinions on what dead people might say. It would maybe help us; if you share your opinion on the philosophers that you disagree with the representation of, made by others here.

Its a little hard for people to have debates about opinions without an alternative to those opinions being offered.

Albert Schweitzer after a year would probably be angry and depressed at just how right he was. He would claim the lack of balance between spirituality and science has grown evermore and that although he saw the man made climate change and WMDs coming; he would be shocked and terrified for our future to think what an AI could do in the hands of evil men.

He would like the current pope but not the last one and he'd still be critical of his Christian roots. Learning about Martin Luther King Jr and many others would make him recognise non whites as equal siblings as opposed to younger siblings and he'd get over his slightly racist paternalism for non-whites. He'd condemn the new rich and elite as far worse than any who existed in his time. He'd cry for what has become of his beloved Africa and probably focus much of his new time there opening up more hospitals and such. He'd probably get very active and try and show everyone up by being so good that it shames us all.

Hume would probably doubt he'd been teleported to the future.

Zeno would wonder how he got here when he'd have to go through some of the past first.

Sade would immediately make a Craigslist account.

Any Buddha would wonder what they did wrong to be reincarnated as themselves.

Heraclitus would become a UN water quality technician, having finally stepped in the same river twice.

Burke would become an office clerk moaning about immigrants.

Marx would immediately be assassinated by a white lone wolf teenager.

Garvey would actually put Twitter to good use, and then be assassinated by an entirely unrelated ( :wink: ) white lone wolf teenager.

Jovial or not I think this is still posted in the “General Philosophy” section so I would expect a sensible answer.

I clearly stated that there was once an old misconception of Nietzsche being an anti-semite which is a ridiculous idea for anyone who has actually read his praise for Jews scattered throughout his works. True enough his sister tampered with his work to align with Hitler’s ideology but that wasn’t Nietzsche.

If we’re going there though I imagine Rousseau would be the lapdog of female celebrity whilst leading Antifa and encouraging violent protests.

I agree with that. It still doesn't provide an answer to the question of what he would think today. Just makes others answers here look a little misleading and ignorant. Still interested in your opinion Sushi :)

Why would Rousseau do all that do you think?

Nietzsche would likely be residing in Switzerland and saying the same thing as before.

Rousseau, assuming he was living as before, would still be vying for attention funded by an older rich woman. He would inevitably still think the ‘elites’ were to blame for everything and encourage an uprising - as came to fruition based on his propaganda culminating in the French revolution by going against the ‘scholars’ of the day (many religious). So perhaps he would be calling for the end of religion ignoring Nietzsche’s warnings about the nihilistic void left in its wake - and maybe a new, and bloodier, revolution would ensue?

Kant would likely still be stuck in his daily routine waiting for someone to shake him to wakefulness like Hume did and perhaps Plato would be a theoretical physicist searching for some ‘absolute’. Diogenes would undoubtedly be a social media sensation yet spurring any offer of money or jobs that came his way.

Nietzsche would probably just do all the new drugs.. — Mark Dennis

Kierkegaard would have enjoyed Viagra LOL.

But seriously, I think (particularly ancient philosophy), that those philosopher's would have most certainly changed their views viz modern physics and cognitive science.

It's always been my concern there, that one should always consider the source of contextual relevance in applying old theology or philosophy to the 21st Century.

It's always been my concern there, that one should always consider the source of contextual relevance in applying old theology or philosophy to the 21st Century. — 3017amen

Couldn't agree more. Marcus Aureliuses

waste no time arguing what a good man should be, be one

is only contextually useful to those in leadership roles requiring decisive action and it isn't useful to them all the time. To us not in those positions the best meaning we can take is probably just that we shouldn't waste our time arguing what good is if we arent also practicing what we think good is. Or possibly to not argue what it is with fools.

I think if Marcus Aurelius were alive today he'd be relieved he doesn't have to be emperor anymore and probably go on a retreat somewhere quiet to lead a simple life until he either dies or grows bored when he realises he made himself into a man of carefully considered action and he knows no other way.

You'll note that I didn't impute anything antisemitic into my impression of Nietzsche, specifically because I know he tried to distance himself from Nazi sympathizers. My comment was aimed mainly at his love of masculine power fantasies, coupled with a touch of probable (historically common) xenophobia and stereotypes of Asians being less masculine.

I think a lot of present day philosophy readers would be disappointed at the generations ago lived philosophers being a) religious and conservative and b) not accepting the present as better especially on the field of Philosophy.

I guess the state of Medicine compared to earlier times they wouldn't have problem.

I guess the state of Medicine compared to earlier times they wouldn't have problem. — ssu

To a certain extent yes; however I think gene editing and research into human immortality might be frowned upon for religious reasons. I have moral problems with the immortality issue that aren't religious in origin. I think its just a deep survival instinct in me that knows to fear the prospect of an eternal dictator/dictators. Say what you want about Hitler and Stalin, at least they had the decency to die haha

That and I see myself as someone who tries to be a good man and stave off corruption. However if you've ever seen the sci fi show or read the book Altered Carbon; you'd worry about the state of your moral fortitude after 600 years of life. Even an eternal benevolent ruler or rulers would be expected to fight temptation the entire time no matter what befalls them.

That's for another discussion though. The Altered Carbon Immortality dilemma would make a great discussion on its own I feel. May start one soon. Spoiler alerts incoming.

I know he tried to distance himself from Nazi sympathizers. — Pfhorrest

I'm curious about this statement. Nietzsche died in 1900 and the Nazi party was formed in 1920.