favorite philosophers

[CCGirl]

Karl Marx, Freidrick Engels, Jean-Paul Sartre, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Rosa Luxembourgh.

 

[stumpjumper]

Thread moved on over to Philosophy from Ethics and Morality.

 

[ralphSpoilsport]

I've always liked Montaigne. His essays are generally humane and down-to-earth.

 

[cantata]

I've always liked Montaigne. His essays are generally humane and down-to-earth.

Good choice!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

Socrates and Plato have their virtues. The Stoics are not bad. Nietzsche can be quite good too.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I like Paul Watzlawick.

 

[CCGirl]

Ayn Rand is considered a phiosopher??!

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Plato and Nietzsche.

If a philosopher is going to write they should make an effort to write well.

 

[cantata]

Ayn Rand is considered a phiosopher??!

Of course!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand#Objectivism:_Ayn_Rand.27s_philosophical_system

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ayn Rand is considered a phiosopher??!

I suppose that depends on who you ask. There are professional philosophers who look down their nose at Ayn Rand and don't want to consider her a philosopher. Rand expressed some harsh criticisms of professional philosophy, more or less wanting to undo the past two thousand years of philosophy and start over, and she never entered the philosophical arena of presenting papers, having them critiqued, critiquing the critiques, etc, preferring instead to reach the intelligent lay public directly with her speeches and essays.

If you understand the way that establishments work, this shouldn't be surprising behavior. Establishments don't like "upstarts" who don't play by their rules. You can see this in many different contexts.

I'm reminded of the way that political establishments treat newbie politicians who enter into the legislature intended to change everything with their idealistic proposals. It is almost impossible for a new politician to get their first proposal voted into law, because the other politicians want to assert their importance too.

In one example, a female politician, having encountered resistance to her first proposal said, "the only reason you are objecting is because I have a vagina!" And the response from one of the long time politicians was, "If you would use your vagina more, and your mouth less, you just might get your proposal through."

He didn't mean for this to be understood literally. He was putting her down because she thought she could just make all the other politicians do whatever she wanted because she was the new kid on the block. I think that Ayn Rand suffered just this sort of rejection, but it is no surprise.

I think it is clear to anyone who examines her philosophical system that it really is a philosophy and deserves to be considered as such, and it is little more than snobbery or hurt feelings that causes professional philosophers to downplay her accomplishments or influence. At least, this is my judgment on the matter.

My prediction is that Ayn Rand will be considered a philosopher by just about everyone before too much longer, because by then she will have been long dead and will be seen as "harmless".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I suppose that depends on who you ask. There are professional philosophers who look down their nose at Ayn Rand and don't want to consider her a philosopher. Rand expressed some harsh criticisms of professional philosophy, more or less wanting to undo the past two thousand years of philosophy and start over, and she never entered the philosophical arena of presenting papers, having them critiqued, critiquing the critiques, etc, preferring instead to reach the intelligent lay public directly with her speeches and essays.

If you understand the way that establishments work, this shouldn't be surprising behavior. Establishments don't like "upstarts" who don't play by their rules. You can see this in many different contexts.

I'm reminded of the way that political establishments treat newbie politicians who enter into the legislature intended to change everything with their idealistic proposals. It is almost impossible for a new politician to get their first proposal voted into law, because the other politicians want to assert their importance too.

In one example, a female politician, having encountered resistance to her first proposal said, "the only reason you are objecting is because I have a vagina!" And the response from one of the long time politicians was, "If you would use your vagina more, and your mouth less, you just might get your proposal through."

He didn't mean for this to be understood literally. He was putting her down because she thought she could just make all the other politicians do whatever she wanted because she was the new kid on the block. I think that Ayn Rand suffered just this sort of rejection, but it is no surprise.

I think it is clear to anyone who examines her philosophical system that it really is a philosophy and deserves to be considered as such, and it is little more than snobbery or hurt feelings that causes professional philosophers to downplay her accomplishments or influence. At least, this is my judgment on the matter.

My prediction is that Ayn Rand will be considered a philosopher by just about everyone before too much longer, because by then she will have been long dead and will be seen as "harmless".


eudaimonia,

Mark

You also have to remember that, although she didn't outline objectivism in essays or fundamental theses concerning her school of thought, there are many within her circle, who were objectivists, who took up the pen to be the representatives to the institution of contemporary and academic philosophy for their, and thus Rand's, philosophical system.

Rand took one of the newer approaches in how to gain recognition for her philosophical ideals by appealing to the population, who she created the ideologies for-- instead of the limited and often elitist intellectual circles of the academy. You don't see too much of this anymore, considering most philosophers have now limited themselves again within the bourgeois protection of the Universities. Instead of taking herself to the traditional mode of debate, critique, rebuke, etc...Rand took a newer and more anti-philosophical path with how she wished to display her items. And that, as the existentialists said, is through writing to and for the normal individual.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i find that i'm influced by the Buddha, Longchen-pa and Nagarjuna the most.

metta,

~v

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I would have to say my favorite philosopher was my old philosophy professor from the university I went to. He was a naturalist, and a metaphysician. When he said to me that religion has a problem with it, because religion says God protects you, and apparently we as sophisticated animals need to feel protected. However three years olds get run over by buses probably a dozen a year in this country. Religious people will even quote scripture, from the ten commandments. If you honor your mother and Father you will live long on the Earth. So the bible ois lying there, there are countless examples of three year olds who have died from automobiles. Religion still stands firm, claims you are protected by God, that he will not let you die young, but, religion is lying when they say that. You are not protected, this is a factual statement. You are not protected by God, and if religion is wrong about that, what else are they wrong about. That is what I started to wonder about, and after seeing that a lot of religious people are totally lost in a world of complete superstion, I too became an atheist, and I would like to be more spiritual and hold out some hope for a God, but can't seem to find a religion that is liberal, and won't lie about, having an immortal soul or being protected, when they don't know that. He was a great teacher and I hope to take more philosophy in the future.

 

[CCGirl]

Of course!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand#Objectivism:_Ayn_Rand.27s_philosophical_system

Ah yes, a philosophy I completely reject. Thanks for the link.

 

[Lord_Marx]

Eastern: Buddha, Dogen (one of the most proment teachers in Zen), and Lao Tzu.

Western: Dostoevsky, Epictetus, and Sartre.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I find Jacques Derrida quite interesting.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial]The Philosopher's Drinking Song[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]Immanuel Kant was a real peassant [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]who was very rarely stable.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]who could think you under the table.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]David Hume could out consume[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]And Wittgenstein was a beery swine [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]'bout the raisin' of the wrist.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]Socrates himself was permanently peassed.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]Plato, they say, could stick it away, [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]'alf a crate of whiskey every day![/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif] and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]"I drink, therefore I am."[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]A lovely little thinker, [/FONT][/FONT]
[ [FONT=sans-serif,Helvetia,Arial][FONT=Courier,sans-serif]but a bugger when he's peassed. -- Monty Python[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[ranmaonehalf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

 

[elman]

I would have to say my favorite philosopher was my old philosophy professor from the university I went to. He was a naturalist, and a metaphysician. When he said to me that religion has a problem with it, because religion says God protects you, and apparently we as sophisticated animals need to feel protected. However three years olds get run over by buses probably a dozen a year in this country. Religious people will even quote scripture, from the ten commandments. If you honor your mother and Father you will live long on the Earth. So the bible ois lying there, there are countless examples of three year olds who have died from automobiles. Religion still stands firm, claims you are protected by God, that he will not let you die young, but, religion is lying when they say that. You are not protected, this is a factual statement. You are not protected by God, and if religion is wrong about that, what else are they wrong about. That is what I started to wonder about, and after seeing that a lot of religious people are totally lost in a world of complete superstion, I too became an atheist, and I would like to be more spiritual and hold out some hope for a God, but can't seem to find a religion that is liberal, and won't lie about, having an immortal soul or being protected, when they don't know that. He was a great teacher and I hope to take more philosophy in the future.

Extremly few Christians would believe what you and the Doctor are complaining about. I never met one actually that believed that God protects us from suffering and death particularly when we are very young. If we believed that and preached it we would be lying but since we do not it is a bogus argument. The book of Job teaches us that we willl suffer even if we are righteous. Jesus said we would suffer if we followed Him. He taught with the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that being right with God is not indicated by our wealth and being out of favor with God is not indicated by our poverty and suffering.

 

[Taure]

I'm surprised at the quantity of people liking the Ancient Greek philosophers. Their stuff is interesting, but pretty much complete fiction made obsolete by more modern philosophy.

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics are quite interesting though.

As for my favourite philosopher...

I would have to say that I don't have one. I studied a fair few of them, but I've yet to find one that I agree with completely. Most philosophers seem to start from reasonable points but then follow the line of reasoning far too far and end up at really quite absurd conclusions.

Descartes is a good example. "I think, therefore I am" is a reasonable piece of philosophy (though incorrect). But the conclusions he then goes on to after it are completely unsupported.

But if I had to chose a single philosopher, I'd have to go for Spinoza. His stuff is pretty heavy going, but I like his ideas (pantheism) and it's all laid out in a way that you can see the logic behind it.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism is okay too, though perhaps a bit too subjective.

And I hate Wittgenstein.