NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is your favorite Philosopher?

My personal favorite is Sartre. "Man is condemned to be free".

I think I am my own favourite philosopher. You can hear other peoples' words and they may have no meaning, but when you can sit down and think of your own meanings for life, in your own words, then there is something special about that.

socrates because he was a big sell out..

i mean staring in bill and ted... and still expecting to be taken seriously...

mans got balls

socrates because he was a big sell out..

i mean staring in bill and ted... and still expecting to be taken seriously...

mans got balls


I love that movie. I need to go out and buy it. Im sure its $2 somewhere.

Epicurus

No one has yet answered his questions about gods. So he rules.

Socrates, because you always have to challenge people's preconceptions. That's much more important for philosophy than what most other so called "philosophers" do and have done.

Socrates, because you always have to challenge people's preconceptions. That's much more important for philosophy than what most other so called "philosophers" do and have done.

But Socrates himself was an absolutist, so he wasn't so much "challenging" at random, as trying to preach a certain agenda.

Epicurus

No one has yet answered his questions about gods. So he rules.


what's the question? I'll answer it....or them..

Of those listed Hobbes. Overall, Nietzsche

Of those listed Hobbes. Overall, Nietzsche

Honestly, I can see that about you.

Of those listed Hobbes. Overall, Nietzsche

That's what the "Other" Option was for! :P

I find it Ironic that a Libertarian is voting for Hobbes.

But Socrates himself was an absolutist, so he wasn't so much "challenging" at random, as trying to preach a certain agenda.
We don't know that though. The only thing we do know is that he was a type who questioned people and made them think that way.

The little we do know about what his actual point might have been could very well have been written by Plato as well.

what's the question? I'll answer it....or them..

if god willing to prevent evil, but unable to do so: then he is not omnipotent.

if god is not willing to prevent evil, but able to do so: then he is malevolent.

if god is willing to prevent evil, and able to do so: then from whence comes evil?

if god is not willing to prevent evil, and unable to do so: then why call him god?

That's what the "Other" Option was for! :P
meh
I find it Ironic that a Libertarian is voting for Hobbes.
I'm a social libertarian. It is true that I once identified myself as a Libertarian with a capital "L". I got better.

I'm a social libertarian. It is true that I once identified myself as a Libertarian with a capital "L". I got better.

Even social libertarianism, though, flies in the face of some of his philosophy.

Probably Sartre, but I really don't know very much about philosophy.

Seneca, hands down. Helped me survive Iraq.

if god willing to prevent evil, but unable to do so: then he is not omnipotent.

if god is not willing to prevent evil, but able to do so: then he is malevolent.

if god is willing to prevent evil, and able to do so: then from whence comes evil?

if god is not willing to prevent evil, and unable to do so: then why call him god?

1 and 2 are not questions, so i can't answer :p

3 and 4 are really dependant on what faith one has. I could answer in a number of different ways simply by talking about it though which faith i believe in.

Even social libertarianism, though, flies in the face of some of his philosophy.
They can be reconciled. Maximum possible liberty that still allows for stability.

I voted "other," because none of those I thought of naming were on the list. But I don't really identify with any philosopher; I pick and choose.

My ethics are basically consequentialist, so I suppose I owe some credit to the Utilitarians, despite disagreeing with them on a few points.

My political philosophy has bits of Rousseau, Rawls, Marx, and Mill in it.

I like Nieztsche considerably, though I think he got much wrong.

I read Leviathan once. It made me cry in my sleep, until one day I found out that Thomas Hobbes has been dead for a while. Then I made the connection from Hobbes to Calvin & Hobbes. Now I read Leviathan in my sleep.

Tank Man. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/TankMan2.jpg)

Said more with one simple act than all others combined.

The much maligned and oft misunderstood Niccolo Machiavelli, one of the first proto-political scientists, and a giant upon who's back almost all modernism in political theory has been built.

Others include Hsun Tzu (http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/confuc/hsun.html), Hegel, and Karl Popper...

Tank Man. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/TankMan2.jpg)

Said more with one simple act than all others combined.

If doesn’t matter if ultimately my death means nothing in China, because a bunch of self-righteous Westerners will use my image for all sorts of shit for the next fifty years, at least.

Where's the "None, I don't sheepishly follow the ideas of some pretentious long dead or still alive, personal opinion peddling douche bag" option? Or the much shorter "No thank you, I like to think for myself" option?


"Philosophy is what is done in the time between actually fixing the problems of the world."

If doesn’t matter if ultimately my death means nothing in China, because a bunch of self-righteous Westerners will use my image for all sorts of shit for the next fifty years, at least.

Didn't he do exactly what you said the Jews should have done to resist the Nazis? (And didn't it have the effect you said that would have?)

Are you just being contrarian?

Where's the "None, I don't sheepishly follow the ideas of some pretentious long dead or still alive, personal opinion peddling douche bag" option? Or the much shorter "No thank you, I like to think for myself" option?


"Philosophy is what is done in the time between actually fixing the problems of the world."

He who lives without history, lives from hand to mouth.

Where's the "None, I don't sheepishly follow the ideas of some pretentious long dead or still alive, personal opinion peddling douche bag" option? Or the much shorter "No thank you, I like to think for myself" option?

Thinking for oneself need not involve rejecting the opinions of everyone else.

The much maligned and oft misunderstood Niccolo Machiavelli, one of the first proto-political scientists, and a giant upon who's back almost all modernism in political theory has been built.
Agreed heartily. The man wrote the Discorsi for God's sake.

If doesn’t matter if ultimately my death means nothing in China, because a bunch of self-righteous Westerners will use my image for all sorts of shit for the next fifty years, at least.

Explain further to this self-righteous westerner what you mean.

Didn't he do exactly what you said the Jews should have done to resist the Nazis? (And didn't it have the effect you said that would have?)

Are you just being contrarian?
There’s a big difference. He is only one man that we know nothing about. He could have just been some crazy homeless guy for all we know.

Explain further to this self-righteous westerner what you mean.
What did that man’s death do for China? Nothing. Ultimately it was ineffective, and thus a failure.

Ultimately it was ineffective, and thus a failure.

Except that the image produced stands as a symbol for the Chinese democracy movement to rally around, as well as an image that exemplifies the values contained in such a movement. It also serves as a demonstration of a basic truth regarding the relationship between the individual and his or her government. Mainly, that government doesn't possess any power that the individual doesn't voluntarily give away. Fine, not many people learned that lesson perhaps. But he seemed to know it, and that made him the most free person on the face of the planet.

No Nietzsche, no Heidegger, no Russell, no James, why even ask?

Kant. Easily one of the most influential morally and his epistemology stands on a level above all others.

No Nietzsche, no Heidegger, no Russell, no James, why even ask?

There was an 'other' button for a reason. I put a subjective list of highlights up there.

You'll notice that my choice wasn't on that list either.

Except that the image produced stands as a symbol for the Chinese democracy movement to rally around, as well as an image that exemplifies the values contained in such a movement. It also serves as a demonstration of a basic truth regarding the relationship between the individual and his or her government. Mainly, that government doesn't possess any power that the individual doesn't voluntarily give away. Fine, not many people learned that lesson perhaps. But he seemed to know it, and that made him the most free person on the face of the planet.
Or maybe he was just crazy. We'll never know.

Or maybe he was just crazy. We'll never know.

So what if he was? He still did what he did, and the image produced still has the value I describe. People can still demonstrate truth unintentionally. In fact, my #2 response for "favorite philosopher" would be the physical universe.

I think Voltaire is pretty damn cool. "I dasagree with everthing you have just said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This guy went to the Bastille, and came out just as clear minded as ever. Now, I've never been to the Bastille, but I have been to Alcatraz, and if the Bastille is half as bad as E-Block in Alcatraz or the original dungeons underneath the prison complex, then I wouldn't last three days without being locked the a far more internal prison of the mind.

Voltaire sacrificed his life for the rights of others and pioneered freedom of speech and freedom of thought. You just have to love him. He's cool. :cool:

George Carlin and Lewis Black. :)

George Carlin and Lewis Black. :)

Well in that case... um, Terry Pratchett?

lao tsu, mahandus k ghandi, and pioter kropotkin.
ralph waldo emerson was mostly ok too.

i'm not saying either the greeks or the nhilists were neccessarily dummies
but i do think they are given waaaaaaaaay toooo much credit.

=^^=
.../\...

I think I am my own favourite philosopher. You can hear other peoples' words and they may have no meaning, but when you can sit down and think of your own meanings for life, in your own words, then there is something special about that.
Amen to that! What philosophers spout is only true if you can arrive at the same conclusions yourself. For that reason, I picked Socrates, because he was more interested in the pursuit of knowledge than in simply declaring himself to be right, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Amen to that! What philosophers spout is only true if you can arrive at the same conclusions yourself. For that reason, I picked Socrates, because he was more interested in the pursuit of knowledge than in simply declaring himself to be right, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

TBH, Hegel should be your first choice, then, because he did relatively little philosophy, and a lot of study into the practice of philosophy.

I think Voltaire is pretty damn cool. "I dasagree with everthing you have just said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


Cool? Eh?

I won't argue that Voltaire didn't have his moments, but I am getting pretty tired of people misttributing this statement to him. He never made it. It was invented as a summation of his views, and is quite a skewed one at that: the closest he came to saying it was 'think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too'.


Personally: I'm pretty partial to Nietzsche, Heraclitus and Deleuze and Guattari. Not that I don't take copious amounts of salt with their writings.

Where's the "None, I don't sheepishly follow the ideas of some pretentious long dead or still alive, personal opinion peddling douche bag" option? Or the much shorter "No thank you, I like to think for myself" option?


"Philosophy is what is done in the time between actually fixing the problems of the world."

Sounds to me like you would like some Marx (once you learnt to leave your ill-informed prejudices at the door).

I won't argue that Voltaire didn't have his moments, but I am getting pretty tired of people misttributing this statement to him. He never made it. It was invented as a summation of his views, and is quite a skewed one at that: the closest he came to saying it was 'think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too'.

Are you absolutely sure? I read that in a text book.

Personally: I'm pretty partial to Nietzsche...

Sorry about this, but I have a terrible memory. Would you summerize his philosophies (his more major things; such as I said about Volatire: freedom of speeach/ freedom of thought- that sort of thing). They say that an elephant never forgets. And, though I'm stealing this line from my father, I have the memory of an elephant. A dead one.

Are you absolutely sure? I read that in a text book.

Yes. That is one of the points of philosophy: that you don't take secondary sources at face value, and question primary texts thoroughly.



Sorry about this, but I have a terrible memory. Would you summerize his philosophies (his more major things; such as I said about Volatire: freedom of speeach/ freedom of thought- that sort of thing). They say that an elephant never forgets. And, though I'm stealing this line from my father, I have the memory of an elephant. A dead one.

Easier to explain the points he made in his philosophy, rather than why he made them: Christianity is a religion that hobbles humans and makes them into slaves, and is the end result of self-resentment. It epitomises a slave morality which is based upon notions of Good and Evil, whereas it would be more productive to utilise a master morality based upon the idea of being good_at something or being bad_at something. The human being is something which is to be overcome. Them what seek to systematise human understanding of the world have missed the point about the relationship between human knowledge and the world.

Something of a hideously incomplete and somewhat misleading thumbnail sketch there, but enough to be going on with.

Not that I don't take copious amounts of salt with their writings.

or, in the case of heraclitus, with his random, quoted out of context, fragments

Arthur Schopenhauer

Your Description of Nietzsche


Easier to explain the points he made in his philosophy, rather than why he made them: Christianity is a religion that hobbles humans and makes them into slaves, and is the end result of self-resentment. It epitomises a slave morality which is based upon notions of Good and Evil, whereas it would be more productive to utilise a master morality based upon the idea of being good_at something or being bad_at something. The human being is something which is to be overcome. Them what seek to systematise human understanding of the world have missed the point about the relationship between human knowledge and the world.

Something of a hideously incomplete and somewhat misleading thumbnail sketch there, but enough to be going on with.

Hmm. Interesting. I can't say I agree with the part about good and bad being inferior to being good at something versus bad at something, though I can see where he's coming from on the slavery thing. (After all, one is limiting and restraining oneself for the sake of what- mythology, really. (I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a Christian either.) For example, in every other religion up until then (including Judaism) sex was considered a good thing (In Judaism, this is only so long as you are in a serious relationship with the other person (As a little note, what Dan Brown said in the DaVince code about sex in Soloman's Temple was actually wrong, though geographically very close. That was either the Canaanites or the Amalachites; I can't remember which.).). Im losing track of the topic...

Back to the philosopher: He sounds very pessemistic. I assme the last line is talking about wisdom, which, in my opinion, can never be taught; it must be learned. It does not come with intelligence; there are geniousses who are not wise. And it does not come with age; it comes with life- something one can never gain with the help of others. Though, perhaps you can understand the wisdom of others and take it in as knowledge, to become wise you must do so yourself. If, instead of walking the journey of life, you are carried on the backs of others, have you ever truely experienced the ground? You may have seen the world, but you have never felt it.

I'm getting a bit carried away... Do you agree with the "things" above? By the way, for some interesting and extremely entertaining views on philosophy, read Terry Pratchett's Small Gods.

if i could add, i prefer Leonardo da Vinci, cause he's great and sketched a lot of magnificent works... if you all heard of his contributions, perhaps you would all appreciate it.........

I think I am my own favourite philosopher. You can hear other peoples' words and they may have no meaning, but when you can sit down and think of your own meanings for life, in your own words, then there is something special about that.

a big long mmmmmmm.................

[QUOTE=Congressional Dimwits;11754118]Hmm. Interesting. I can't say I agree with the part about good and bad being inferior to being good at something versus bad at something, though I can see where he's coming from on the slavery thing./QUOTE]

The real dichotomy isn't between good and bad vs. good_at and bad_at, but Good and Evil vs. good(_at...) and bad(_at...).

Ehm... Marx is not a philosopher.

Ehm... Marx is not a philosopher.

Ker-wrong.

He is a Young Hegelian. There is no reason to exclude his political/economic ideas from the field of philosophy, lest we also decide that likewise the political/economic ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau or Hobbes (for example) do not count as philosophy. Furthermore in his earlier works, such as the Philosophical Manuscripts he focuses more on non-political ideas. His entire worldview is one based on a dialectic which is a continuation (and inversion) of the Hegelian tradition.

Under what definition do you not consider him to be a philosopher?

http://www.elarcadigital.com.ar/59/notas/FOTOS/1933/grouchomarxs.jpg

"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough."

"From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."

"I could dance with you until the cows come home. On second thought I'd rather dance with the cows until you come home."

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception."

"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it."

"Money frees you from doing things you dislike. Since I dislike doing nearly everything, money is handy."

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

"Women should be obscene and not heard."

"I don't have a photograph, but you can have my footprints. They're upstairs in my socks."

If that isn't philosophy, I don't know what is. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Mill

If more NS'ers (and people in general) would read his "On Liberty" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty), we'd have far fewer asshats that thing that the Patriot Act or banning guns is okay.

In a nutshell:
The greatest liberty for the greatest number of people, so long as no one else's rights are taken away.

Albert Camus.

All those listed and metioned are nice, but I'll go with Jesus. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/JesusShades.gif I think that he deserves a mention here as well. ;):p

Well, Nietzsche did have guts to be sure. He had to have been baraged by death threats from his sheer iconoclasm.

The Three Stooges most Soitanly. Nyuck nyuck nyuck.:D

The Three Stooges most Soitanly. Nyuck nyuck nyuck.:D

http://www.three-stooges.com/3-stooges.jpg

http://www.three-stooges.com/3-stooges.jpg

:D

*does the curly shuffle*

I think Voltaire is pretty damn cool. "I dasagree with everthing you have just said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I won't argue that Voltaire didn't have his moments, but I am getting pretty tired of people misttributing this statement to him. He never made it. It was invented as a summation of his views, and is quite a skewed one at that: the closest he came to saying it was 'think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too'.

Indeed. Me too, BWO.

Voltaire
The phrase

``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it''

is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude.

It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre. Chapter VII is devoted to Helvétius (1715-1771), whom she depicts as a kindly, generous person, with a hint of more talent to raise him above mediocrity. He married and settled in the sticks, with a new wife who was unfashionably old (32), and they were happy. This was ended by his tragic aspiration, to earn some small glory for himself as a philosopher.

In 1758, he published ``De l'Esprit,'' which Hall renders ``On the Mind.'' From the little Hall says of it directly, I take it that this was a moral-relativist tract, adducing bad social conditions as the cause of immoral behavior, regarding humans essentially as animals, and skeptical of the validity of moral claims generally.

This was unpopular with everyone - secular philosophers, all of the church, the government. It certainly got him noticed, but not by all at once. Voltaire immediately regarded the work as a serious disappointment from one who had been a somewhat promising protege. He was most insulted to have been compared in it with lesser intellectual lights (Crébillon and Fontenelle). It was widely criticized by other wits of their enlightened social circle. For a few months, however, it escaped the notice of the government.

Then the Dauphin read it.

The privilege to publish was revoked; the censor who approved its publication was sacked. A rolling wave of official condemnation began, culminating with the Pope (Jan. 31, 1759) and the Parliament of Paris (Feb. 6) and public book-burning by the hangman (Feb. 10), an honor shared with Voltaire's ``Natural Law.''

On the principle that anything so unpopular with the government must ipso facto be pretty good, the official condemnation permanently established Helvétius's philosophical repute among the fashionable salon crowd, and rehabilitated him among the intellectual elite as well, to a great extent. He became popular in Protestant Germany and England.

Hall wrote:

...The men who had hated [the book], and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. `What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! `I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now. But he soon came, as a Voltaire would come, to swearing that there was no more materialism in `On the Mind' than in Locke, and a thousand more daring things in `The Spirit of Laws.'

(Boldface added here for emphasis.) Friends is not a scholarly work, but Hall is fairly scrupulous throughout the book to state within the text whether she is quoting speech or text, and whether various reports are first-person or likely hearsay. I believe it was reasonable of her to expect that `I disapprove ... say it' would be recognized as her own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. I think some readers were confused because of the way she follows this with paraphrases of his spoken criticisms.

In any case, the phrase was too eloquent, so it became quoted, and famous names attach themselves to quotes, to the detriment of the less well-known originators.

Hall herself claimed later that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire's words in his Essay on Tolerance:

``Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.''

Hall died in 1919. In his A Book of French Quotations (1963), Norbert Guterman suggested that the probable source for the quotation was a line in a 6 February 1770 letter to M. le Riche:

``Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.''
http://www.plexoft.com/SBF/V02.html#Voltaire


Are you absolutely sure? I read that in a text book.

Text books, especially on matters of history are often innacurate about such matters. If text books were to be belived, George Washington chopped down the cherry tree and couldn't tell a lie.

Yes. That is one of the points of philosophy: that you don't take secondary sources at face value, and question primary texts thoroughly.

Indeed. Preferrably in the original. And even, then there are questions.

I remember quite the debate in one of my poli. theory classes over the precise meaning of "warre" as used by Hobbes in the Leviathan - it went on for a couple of weeks, with heavy research being done.

Nietzsche, his work is the most entertaining to read and is pretty close to my personal beliefs.
I've also got to give credit to Desade for creating his lovably perverted version of Humanism.

Epicurus.

http://flagrantdisregard.com/flickr/output/motivator9306958.jpg

Me. I don't care for any philosophy besides my own.

Epicurus, Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper.

Epicurus

Oh yeah, I forgot about him. I actually agree a lot with the man's philosophy... And, I also agree a lot with his Persian counterpart (forgot his name).

Democritus.

"In some worlds there is no Sun and Moon, in others they are larger than in our world, and in others more numerous. In some parts there are more worlds, in others fewer (...); in some parts they are arising, in others failing. There are some worlds devoid of living creatures or plants or any moisture."

Your shitty list of philosophers doesnt have Kant on it.

Your shitty list of philosophers doesnt have Kant on it.

It also doesn't have Sarte, Hume, Nietzche, Democritus, Aristotle, Mill, or any of the Utilitarians, to name just a few.

I got 9 options and an "Other". Don't bitch about the list.

I need to start reading more philosophy, the only ones i've read thoroughly are nietzsche and voltaire(although the volt-man is really, really obvious). I've read Hobbes' social contract thingy, and a bit of some other existentialists some sartre and camus.

I want to read kierkegaard next, then take another crack at plato's coma-inducing republic.

Malthus, by far.

Insane, he was, but damn funny.

Malthus was a schmuck.

Of those listed, Plato. In general I like Aristotle and his theory of epistemology best. Nietzsche has some fascinating ideas worth examination. If we are considering individuals like Marx philosophers though, then I would have to say Mises is my favourite (and Hoppe my favourite disciple of his) - as well as Bertrand de Jouvenel, given that both essentially based their views on Aristotelian philosophy.

Sounds to me like you would like some Marx (once you learnt to leave your ill-informed prejudices at the door).
rofl... Nice try though.

rofl... Nice try though.

In case it escaped your notice the philosophy of Marx was all about changing the world: and I don't think anyone here can dispute that it did that, for good or ill.

Winnie the Pooh.

Actually, Lao Tzu. Through inaction, we accomplish everything.

Sartre.

"L'enfer c'est les autres."

Myself.

And the Anti-Marx, Chuck Norris.

I oppose any ideal that does not recognize the ideas of laziness (Marx, that B@$t@rd!).

W. K. Clifford - cos he said : "No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe."

Ummm. I am, however, more inclined to have favourite philosophies than philosophers.

That said: Peter Singer, specifically for his 'Equality for Animals?' chapter in Practical Ethics.

And what about:
Immanuel Kant (the greatest philosopher ever in my opinion)
Bertrand Russel (a genius!)
Nietzsche (great analysis of the archetypes of european culture)
Derrida (thumbs up for deconstructionism!)
Aristoteles (the more modern of all ancient thinkers)
Galileo Galilei (yea, he was ALSO a philosopher, since he laid the epistemological bases of modern science in the "Il Saggiatore" and the "Dialogo sui due massimi sistemi")
David Hilbert (formalism: Wir muessen wissen, wir werden wissen - We must know, we shall know)
Kurt Goedel (modern logics)
Boole (the mathematiciser of logics)
Pico della Mirandola (the rediscoverer of Aristoteles through the Arabs' work, and great philologist)
Ockham (and his "razor")
...
just to quote some of the greatests!

Well, hard to say. I think my favourite philospoher is Kant.

But there are many others I like: Socrates, Aristoteles and Epicurus, Mill and Nietzsche, etc.