Favorite Modern, and Not so Modern, Philosopher!

[AionPhanes]

I'm sure something like this has been asked before but I haven't across it yet. At the very least this thread will be new to me.

My #1 super favoritist modern philosopher:

Nicolai Berdyaev. Berdyaev was a Russian existentialist philosopher who was strongly motivated by his Russian Orthodox faith. Anthropological and theological issues were most central to his philosophical work. Like may existentialist philosophers, he had a driving desire for freedom, and his philosophy has often be labeled a 'personalist philosophy of freedom.' I've noticed some of the following philosophical influences on his writings; Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Martin Buber, Kant, Vladimir Soloviev, and the Slavophiles. Certain works of literature were also equally, if not more important, including Pushkin, Tolstoy (to a lesser extent), and most importantly of all Dostoevsky. He claimed that the birth of a Dostoevsky would single handedly justify the very existence of the Russian people. No small praise I guess.

Berdyaev wasn't simply a synthesis of outside influences however. He added his own unique genius to the mix. I can't help but come away from reading his works with a feeling of mind blowenness [technical philosophical term]. Not only are his writings mind expanding they also have a joy inducing quality (for me personally at least) without being naive or ignoring the reality of intense human suffering. That's a rare combination imo.​

My #1 favorite pre-modern philosopher. This one was a little harder to pick because their are SO many awesome philosophers to choose from:

Epictetus. The old time Stoic philosopher, and former slave, who went on to influence people throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. An example of one of his more famous intellectual descendants I could point to would be the philosopher- emperor Marcus Aurelius. Epicteus' teachings on morality are lucid and straight forward. More importantly, for me personally at least, is the fact that he expresses some very helpful teachings for overcoming suffering and meaninglessness in life. Want to know how to fight the passions and strive for virtue? Check him out.

I really think the writings of Epictetus, as well the writings of some of the people influenced by him ( the founders ofCognitive Behavioral Therapy for example), helped me to overcome stress, addiction, and depression. The book " Stoicism and the Art of Happiness" by Dr Donald Robertson helped a lot in that area. The Stoic theory of the passions, the art of meditation on misfortune, the need for a "reserve clause", the Stoic discipline of desire, and discipline of action, are all so useful to learn and practice. The early Saints, monastics, Desert Fathers/Mothers, and such included many of the same practices in their Christian ascetic teachings.​

 

[AionPhanes]

To make this more discussion prone anyone who wants to take me, or another poster, to task for choosing the philosophers they did should go ahead and do so. Hopefully in a friendly manner though. Example : "of all the philosophers you could choose from why on earth would pick a relatively minor dude like Epectitus who was merely passing on Stoic teachings that were ancient in the time of his great, great , grandfather... Heck I don't even know who that Berdyaev fellow is how can you choose him over one of the mega-influential giants like Kant? ..." etc...

I might post some selections from Berdyaev to give people a small a taste of what he is about. I know he isn't immensely well known in the modern America philosophical milieu these days. Existentialism itself , outside maybe some young 20 something college newbies, isn't that popular now for that matter. At least it's more well known in general though.

 

[jayem]

Ancient: Epicurus

Modern: Bertrand Russell

 

[AionPhanes]

Ahh,Bertrand Russell.

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.​

-Bertrand Russell​

Dang, I must be very inaccurate at times lol. I don't know a lot about his philosophy other than some of his pithy quotes, and a few anecdotes about his actions/life that I've come across on philosophy podcasts now and then. I did enjoy the ideas of the other guy who worked on the Principia Mathmatica with him though - Alfred North Whitehead. I'm a bit of a philosophy noob with a lot more to learn.

Epicurus is an interesting choice. I always thought he was into mindless self indulgence type hedonism but was surprised to learn that his ideas of pleasure and well being were much more refined than popularly attributed to him. Almost like an asceticism of hedonism. Restrain yourself on unimportant thing to get the most enjoyment out of the higher pleasures.

 

[AionPhanes]

Confucius say:

"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
-Bertrand Russell

I love it.

 

[FireDragon76]

I try to remember Seneca's saying "To err is human". Expect the worst out of people and you will always be happy, I guess. The problem with living that way though, nobody else does and they will think you are a pessimist, even if you are happy in doing so.

 

[AionPhanes]

I try to remember Seneca's saying "To err is human". Expect the worst out of people and you will always be happy, I guess. The problem with living that way though, nobody else does and they will think you are a pessimist, even if you are happy in doing so.

That's a very Stoic way of looking at things. I think he may have been a stoic right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Stoics are definitely interesting, but I will say:

Ancient: Aristotle

Modern: Ayn Rand


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FireDragon76]

That's a very Stoic way of looking at things. I think he may have been a stoic right?

Yeah. He was a teacher of Nero, always a dangerous thing to be! So eventually he was given the choice of execution or suicide, so he chose suicide.

 

[Paradoxum]

It's hard to say two favorites, but:

J.S.Mill: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men."

Peter Singer: "I am not saying that factory farming is the same as the Holocaust or the slave trade, but it's clear that there is an immense amount of suffering in it, and just as we think that the Nazis were wrong to ignore the suffering of their victims, so we are wrong to ignore the sufferings of our victims."

 

[dms1972]

CS Lewis - for so many things - pointing out chronological snobbery, that is thinking the most 'up-to-date' notions are the best. Doing his own thing writing science fiction and children's stories regardless of running up against academic prigishness for doing so.

Leibniz - for taking Rene Descarte to task.

Quoting William Barrett - "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646 - 1716) would have been an extraordinary figure at any time. In a "century of genius" he stands out as perhaps its most many-sided mind. There seems almost no field of learning that he did not touch upon and adorn: science, mathematics, philosophy, theology, jurisprudence, and history. And more than this immersion in various fields of learning, he maintained contact with the best minds of his time. He visited the Royal Society in England, and he was a diligent and prolific correspondent. He thus brings before us in a striking way the fact that the Western mind in the seventeenth century, despite the divergence of individual views, had a kind of unity of outlook and background that we have never quite known again."

"What is wrong with Descarte's conception of the body? A body is a chunk of matter. But what is matter? The essence of matter, according to Descartes, is simply extension - it fills space. Here Liebniz bridles. The nature of extension is simply that a part, any part is external to any other. How do they cohere as one body? The desk across the room, for example, a piece of brown wood extends from one bounding surface to another. But simply as extension, any part you choose is external to any other, and so the table would fall apart into a disconnected heap of many parts. But it is in fact one body, one table, and there must be some unifying energy that makes it one. And here we pass from the inert notion of matter to the notion of energy." William Barrett (Death of the Soul - Philosophical Thought from Descartes to the Computer)

 

[TillICollapse]

Not So Modern: Lao-Tzu
Modern: Ayn Rand
More Modern lol: Johnny Cash and Iron Mike Tyson (Tyson for a single quote of his)

Reading them as a teenager, they had a huge impact on me at the time. When I read the Fountainhead, my heart was pounding and IIRC I read it in one sitting. And I had several copies of the Tao Te Ching. Concerning Johnny Cash, well ...

 

[dms1972]

Concerning Johnny Cash, well ...

...well what?

Reading them as a teenager, they had a huge impact on me at the time. When I read the Fountainhead, my heart was pounding and IIRC I read it in one sitting.

Is that a good practice? I'd be concerned about deep-vein thrombosis from sitting too long if I tried that with some writers.

Ayn Rand it seems to me has little to offer other than individualism and rational self-interest? Her apparently self-penned commentary notes on CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man, really didn't tell me anything other than that she didn't like him much not why she disagreed with his thought, so I can't even tell whether she understood him. In any case she tended to exaggerate her differences in thought with some philosophers.

Interesting how Polanyi went in the other direction towards God after the demise of logical positivism. I'd rather have altruist, over an egoist like Rand any day. Not that Polanyi was either.

"The best people are like water, which benefits all things and does not compete with them. It stays in lowly places that others reject. This is why it is so similar to the Way."

Is that sort of attitude and life of self-sacrifice compatible with Rand's ethical self-interest? She could never have come up with an insight like that in my opinion, or articulated it so well.

 

[TillICollapse]

Even though Rand has nothing really to offer other than radical individualism and rational self-interest? Interesting how Polanyi went in the other direction towards God after the demise of Logical postitivism. I'd rather have altruist, over an egoist like Rand any day.

"The best people are like water, which benefits all things and does not compete with them. It stays in lowly places that others reject. This is why it is so similar to the Way."

Is that sort of attitude and life of self-sacrifice not difficult to square with Rand's "ethical self-interest"?

I just realized that in post #2 of this thread, it welcomes anyone who wishes to take others to task for their choices. However even having said that, you never asked me a single direct question concerning my post you quoted, so I'm assuming you're talking to yourself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ayn Rand it seems to me has little to offer other than individualism and rational self-interest?

That is what she did so brilliantly. It was a great gift at a time in history when individualistic philosophy was sorely needed.

Is that sort of attitude and life of self-sacrifice compatible with Rand's ethical self-interest?

Ayn Rand did not object to acts of benevolence. Other people could be profound values to oneself, and one could act kindly, generously, warmly, and even charitably without any ethical problems. One's peaceful and productive work was also a way in which others might gain great benefits, even if they are not direct customers. What she objected to is the idea that the overarching ethical purpose of our existence is to be nothing more than the servants or slaves to the needs and/or wishes of others. It is ethically proper for us to live for our own happiness as individuals, and we don't have to apologize or feel guilty for that.

Certainly, her heroic fictional characters do not seek to hurt others, and do in fact benefit others with their productive work, but competition is not intrinsically a bad thing. Her advice would be: be like stone, so that you may achieve long term goals. Her heroes spend many years of hard (and smart, and imaginative) work to achieve their goals. Integrity is a great virtue, and creative purpose is a great value.

As for those people "like water", in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged several heroic characters do "stay in lowly places that others reject" for reasons specific to their unusual circumstances. They do not relish "lowly places" for their own sake (and would prefer to rise to the level of their ability) but rather for the sake of personal integrity, protecting themselves and others from mistreatment, and for hopefully enlightening others to a better way of life.

Hers is a great insight, and one much needed after the onslaught of collectivism, authoritarianism, and demands for self-sacrifice to "greater goods" in recent world history that have caused so much death and misery.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Inkfingers]

Ancient? Epictetus, definately. Although Laozi was not so bad either.

Modern? Tricky, but probably Roger Scruton.

 

[AionPhanes]

Leibnitz - for taking Rene Descartes to task.

Great choice. His monadology is fascinating but doesn't seem to be taken to seriously anymore for some reason. I wonder why? I know one of my other favorite modern philosophers, Alfred North Whitehead, and process philosophy in general, owes a great debt to Leibnitz. Whiteheads 'actual entities' are lot like Leibnitz's monads only with windows.

 

[AionPhanes]

I love Lao Tzu as well. I noticed him mentioned twice. I got to give higher marks to Zhuangzi though. At least his writtings spoke more to me. When it comes to modern Chinese philosophers I really like Tu Wei-Ming. He is one of the better known new-Confucians. He brings Confucianism into dialogue with Christianity as well at times. There are a few Christian-Confucians in Boston here in the US. Part of the so called "Boston school of Confucianism" [ see the book "Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World" for more on Boston Confucianism.]

Tu Wei-Ming's "Confucian Thought, Selfhood as Creative Transformation" is a great place to start if you are interested in him or the New Confucian movement.

::edit:: Robert Neville considers himself both Christian and Confucian for example. He authored the "Boston Confucianism.." book I mentioned and some others as well. He often brings Confucianism (as well as Taoism at times) into dialogue with Western religion and philosophy especially Christianity, Process Philosophy, and Pragmatism .

 

[TillICollapse]

Since you changed your post,

...well what?

There is something about Johnny Cash I have yet to put my finger on

Is that a good practice? I'd be concerned about deep-vein thrombosis from sitting too long if I tried that with some writers.

Haha, well I probably wasn't at high risk for DVT at that time

Ayn Rand it seems to me has little to offer other than individualism and rational self-interest? Her apparently self-penned commentary notes on CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man, really didn't tell me anything other than that she didn't like him much not why she disagreed with his thought, so I can't even tell whether she understood him. In any case she tended to exaggerate her differences in thought with some philosophers.

I gleaned certain things from her, while leaving others. The concept of selfishness actually being a virtue, as portrayed through the character of Roark and contrasted with others like Keating ... was beautiful to me. I saw Roark as a beautiful creature, who was ultimately selfless by simply being honest and true to the best possible version of himself he could be. He was actually in love with being alive, and the irony of his ego was that it wasn't based on others, thus, he was ultimately a "giver" to others without trying to be. Furthermore, the fact he could appreciate and love something to the degree that he would rather see it unrealized or blown up than compromised or put before others who would not appreciate it the same ... I loved that idea. That ideal. That speaks to treasuring something, and a man's ability to recognize "sacred" so to speak. Furthermore, his love affair with Dominique ... very much paralleled something for me in my own life.

All in all I saw Roark as not a dreamer, but the dreamer realized and manifest so to speak. I like that idea. I didn't agree with everything-Rand, I gleaned what I gleaned. The ideas of hers as displayed in that first book I read of hers, were new to me. One of the things it actually encouraged in me, was to value people in a way I never had before. Atlas Shrugged, for example ... didn't have the same impact on me. Some of her other stuff I couldn't even get through I was too bored.

"The best people are like water, which benefits all things and does not compete with them. It stays in lowly places that others reject. This is why it is so similar to the Way."

Is that sort of attitude and life of self-sacrifice compatible with Rand's ethical self-interest? She could never have come up with an insight like that in my opinion, or articulated it so well.

I did the same with Lao-Tzu that I did with Rand ... gleaned what I gleaned, left the other lay. On the surface, two things may not look compatible, but when combined a certain way, they may be palatable nonetheless. And no, I'm not trying to sound Taoist there on purpose

One of my favorite passages from the Tao Te Ching (that I still remember, it's been awhile) is this:

"The very softest of things, can ride like a galloping horse through the hardest of things.

Like water, like water penetrating rock. And so the invisible enters in.

That is why I know it is wise, to act by doing nothing. And how few, how very few understand this !

People teach in the world what I know to be true:

If you live violently, that is how you will die."

Thus, not all his thoughts speak directly to selflessness or his view of the ego centered weak man.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I saw Roark as a beautiful creature, who was ultimately selfless by simply being honest and true to the best possible version of himself he could be.

Yes, true. The vision is beautiful.

An interesting aspect of Roark is that he wasn't self-aggrandizing. He was in love with architecture, and he followed his artistic vision wherever it led him. His buildings carried his unique stamp not because he intentionally put it there, but because he simply did the best job he could using his own talents.

That speaks to treasuring something, and a man's ability to recognize "sacred" so to speak.

Exactly right. We see that in his Temple of the Human Spirit, which is the love he has for life given concrete form. It can be described in no way quite as adequate as to call it "sacred". It really is a temple to the sacredness of human life and happiness.


eudaimonia,

Mark