NationStates Jolt Archive

The options from this poll were "borrowed" from the results of a poll conducted by In Our Time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_result.shtml).

Well, who is it? Choose and defend. If yours isn't on the list, list yours below and just vote for the guy with the best name.

EDIT: Just to clarify, the poll came from the radio show In Our Time. If you are dissatisfied, please send all complaints to Radio 4 here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/).

David Kaufmann, known for his existentialist work is oft-forgotten, but quite good.

No Sartre, eh?

David Kaufmann, known for his existentialist work is oft-forgotten, but quite good.

The Wikipedia article makes him sound like solely a Jewish theologian. What existentialist work did he write?

No Sartre, eh?

Not among In Our Time voters, no.

Philosophy is bullshit.

No Heidegger, either. Sad.

Heidegger was the author of the German version of the killer joke.

Philosophy is bullshit.

Only if you get paid to do it.

The options from this poll were "borrowed" from the results of a poll conducted by In Our Time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_result.shtml).

Well, who is it? Choose and defend. If yours isn't on the list, list yours below and just vote for the guy with the best name.

hmmm.. is it just me or are NSGers unlikely to be qualified to answer this poll. I mean I've read something from half of these, and far from all of what they wrote. I doubt anyone besides maybe a few philosophy majors have read something from all of these, further the prospect of reading something from all philosophers is even lower if we allow someone to choose more than whats on the list.

Only if you get paid to do it.

So you believe prostitution should be outlawed.

So you believe prostitution should be outlawed.

well, two very different things. If you get paid to have sex, maybe you change how you act to please the person who is paying- thats a good thing for the client, and the prostitute gets more business perhaps.

However, if a philosopher whores himself out, does the same thing, it has the same effect with the addition of his thoughts being bullshit because they're not accurate.

well, two very different things. If you get paid to have sex, maybe you change how you act to please the person who is paying- thats a good thing for the client, and the prostitute gets more business perhaps.

However, if a philosopher whores himself out, does the same thing, it has the same effect with the addition of his thoughts being bullshit because they're not accurate.

That's what Heidegger was accused of - whoring himself out to Hitler

That's what Heidegger was accused of - whoring himself out to Hitler

its also possible, that the philosopher just takes the free cash and does what he would have done anyway. I honestly haven't read much of modern philosophers, so I wouldn't know one way or another about Heidegger.

Notables unmentioned in the poll...

*Heidegger*, Sartre, Lacan, *Freud*, Foucault, and many more that probably aren't coming to mind.

(The two with stars are in my opinion the most significant of these five)

Immanuel Kant, for the Groundwork and for the actual Metaphysic of Morals.

I think Paul Tillich is one of the bests for his theory of the Kairós and it´s meaning in history.

Notables unmentioned in the poll...

*Heidegger*, Sartre, Lacan, *Freud*, Foucault, and many more that probably aren't coming to mind.

(The two with stars are in my opinion the most significant of these five)

By what standard do you include Freud as a philosopher? As a misguided thinker who manged to generate a completely unsubstantiated set of personal opinions about the human psyche I could accept, but where is the critical thinking, where is the questioning of the basic assumptions of our knowledge / understanding? Where, in short, is the philosophy?

Of the options there, I'm gonna say Aristotle for being an awesome allrounder, being one of the earliest and formalising the ideas of logic that everyone afterwards used. Plus, most of his work was lost, so he might've been even more brilliant than we think he was.

By what standard do you include Freud as a philosopher? As a misguided thinker who manged to generate a completely unsubstantiated set of personal opinions about the human psyche I could accept, but where is the critical thinking, where is the questioning of the basic assumptions of our knowledge / understanding? Where, in short, is the philosophy?

Not to mention the rabid cocaine habit.

I do believe the list is really missing some major ones though, and I mentioned Heidegger and Sartre in particular.

And no Simone de Beauvoir, or women?

I voted Aristotle...

But, i want Noam Chomsky, :soap: lol

George Carlin. *nod*

John Dewey

The title for Greatest Philosopher of All Time goes to - (wait for it) ... Winnie the Pooh!

He preaches and espouses the philosophy of acceptance, tolerance, relaxation. The philosophy of the laid-back and easy going. Nothing fazes Pooh.

The title for Greatest Philosopher of All Time goes to - (wait for it) ... Winnie the Pooh!

He preaches and espouses the philosophy of acceptance, tolerance, relaxation. The philosophy of the laid-back and easy going. Nothing fazes Pooh.

Man, thats the greatest thing ever...

I think i vote Santa though...i mean what greater philosophy than "Be good for goodness sake"...

Can I get a 'Ho Ho Ho'!?

Miller, from Repo Man

A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.

By what standard do you include Freud as a philosopher? As a misguided thinker who manged to generate a completely unsubstantiated set of personal opinions about the human psyche I could accept, but where is the critical thinking, where is the questioning of the basic assumptions of our knowledge / understanding? Where, in short, is the philosophy?

I include him because what his ideas suggest, and the way in which they challenged the views of humanity at the time, as well as their influence on every "philosopher" after him (Lacan in particular). He challenged the Enlightenment idea that the human mind was entirely rational, as well as old views on sexuality (see the Oedipus complex, castration fear, infant sexuality, etc.). He, for the most part, popularized if not engineered the idea of the "death drive", a desire to return to our natural state while also destroying things around us, which is referenced by thinkers after him. The idea that we repress thoughts unconsciously is significant as well, again challenging the idea that our logical unit is in complete power at all times. Of course, he is not the only one to challenge common human values of his/her time, but at the height of belief in human rationality, at the height of belief in humanity's capacity for improvement, Freud's work lead to the conclusion that the most fundamental beliefs about human nature were flawed.

Regardless of whether his "science" was mostly right or wrong, he was certainly right about some things, and the ideas he proposed have been taken up, refined, and attacked by many thinkers after him.

Not to mention the rabid cocaine habit.

I do believe the list is really missing some major ones though, and I mentioned Heidegger and Sartre in particular.

And no Simone de Beauvoir, or women?

Trust me, he's not the only one on these lists to have done drugs, and even then, it's not relevant.

Haven't read any of her stuff, I've heard of Judith Butler as well, but again I'm not familiar with her writings.

Ooh, i got another good one...

"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant." -Rufus the Thirteenth Apostle...

With all due respect to Melvyn Bragg and In Our Time, the wonderful program that it is, I say pish and waffle to 'Greatest Philosopher'; at least if by 'greatest' you mean best or most accomplished. It's a meaningless contest. The ten listed are without doubt hugely influential philosophers in their own right, though the list is dominated by Western philosophers, weighted to the Analytic tradition and, excluding Mr. Popper, doesn't include anyone born less than roughly 200 years ago.

Perhaps the list would be better simply named 'Great Philosophers', and to that list I'd add those philosophers who've influenced me greatly, subject, I'm afraid, to much the same bias as the OP's list:

Epicurus, Spinoza, John Locke, William Godwin, John Stuart Mill, Peter Kropotkin, John Rawls, Bertrand Russell, (against her best wishes) Hannah Arendt, Peter Singer, Mary Midgley, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennet, Alain Badiou and Murray Bookchin.


Only if you get paid to do it.
No, that's the best job in the world.


Immanuel Kant, for the Groundwork and for the actual Metaphysic of Morals.
No surprises there. ;-)

George Carlin. *nod*
Or there.


The title for Greatest Philosopher of All Time goes to - (wait for it) ... Winnie the Pooh!

He preaches and espouses the philosophy of acceptance, tolerance, relaxation. The philosophy of the laid-back and easy going. Nothing fazes Pooh.
Perhaps you've read the Tao of Pooh?


Regardless of whether his "science" was mostly right or wrong, he was certainly right about some things, and the ideas he proposed have been taken up, refined, and attacked by many thinkers after him.
I'm no lover of psychoanalysis (analyse that, bitches!), but I agree Freud made a huge contribution to Western thinking. The point almost goes without saying, really. Mary Midgley puts it best, I think, when she calls Freud a great finder of concepts, although psychoanalysis used as a 'science' has glaring flaws, his use of terms such as 'unconscious' has dramatically changed the way we think about ourselves and our surroundings.

In that respect, the man is certainly a philosopher.

Haven't read any of her [Simone de Bouvier] stuff, I've heard of Judith Butler as well, but again I'm not familiar with her writings.
Bouvier's The Second Sex is one of modern feminism's key texts.

It's online in a number of places. Well worth a read.

Depends what you mean by "greatest." Greatest influence on civilization, or most imporant to us today? You'd have a very different poll for each question, and neither would look like the poll in this thread.

Also, Karl Popper? And no Hegel? Bleh.

Machiavelli hands down.

If you punch the OP in the gut I'll give you a cookie.

I'm a Nietzsche fan myself.

No Dr. Seuss?

*Ponders the meaning and implications of a Wocket being present in one's pocket*

The Dude from The Big Lebowski. http://dudeism.com

But seriously, I'd go Rene Descartes.

hume - philosophy's superhero

hume - philosophy's superhero
The Great Infidel strikes again!

Beckenbauer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh7TS21LgMw)

Perhaps you've read the Tao of Pooh?






Of course. And the Te of Piglet as well.

Voltaire.

But all of them subscribe to the folly that humans are strictly rational, it seems.

What about Kirkegaard? He is quite the interesting philosopher.

Socrates, but I haven't read something from all of this, and I haven't even heard of 1 or 2.

Odd thing, to find Marx in the poll, and not Hegel...

Democritos

:p

Anyone who has just smoked a giant doobie.

Socrates, but I haven't read something from all of this, and I haven't even heard of 1 or 2.

You haven't heard of Karl Marx? Seriously?

And I thought we were meant to have a decent education system... :rolleyes:

My favourite is Camus, although I do quite enjoy Kierkegaard and some of Nietzsche's books.

However the most influential western Philosopher would have to be Descartes seconded by Hume. If we extend beyond western thought things just get too confusing.

The options from this poll were "borrowed" from the results of a poll conducted by In Our Time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_result.shtml).

Well, who is it? Choose and defend. If yours isn't on the list, list yours below and just vote for the guy with the best name.



Firstly, the greatest philosopher that I can think of would have to be Nicolas Flamel. Also if nobody that you can vote for seems fit for the position DON'T VOTE. Or write in a name.

I've got a special liking for Hume.

It seems a bit unfair that all the philosophers listed are western. Eastern philosophy has a number of great ones as well and they have some very different perspectives

I vote for write in candidate: Confucius

The Art of War -Sun Tzu

The Wikipedia article makes him sound like solely a Jewish theologian. What existentialist work did he write?
Actually, I just made a name out of two other names to try to sound knowledgeable about something I find extremely pretentious and a waste of time :p

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Hobbes.

Anyways. Averroes and Avicenna are my top favorites.

But what do we actually mean by the term 'Philosopher'?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Hobbes.

:gas::headbang:... Hobbes? HOBBES?... Thank providence Enlightenment has happened since.

Of the options there, I'm gonna say Aristotle for being an awesome allrounder, being one of the earliest and formalising the ideas of logic that everyone afterwards used. Plus, most of his work was lost, so he might've been even more brilliant than we think he was.
Yea, Aristotle definitely has to take it just for his sheer influence and the foundations he laid for Western and Muslim philosophies. If I recall correctly, Aristotle is by far the most commonly referenced philosopher within philosophy, even if we just look at contemporary works and papers.

With that said, I am not a fan of Aristotle. I've never been able to read more than a short excerpt of his at a time. He is seriously insanely boring to read.
Machiavelli hands down.

If you punch the OP in the gut I'll give you a cookie.
Only if you place Machiavelli in his proper context. Seriously, the people who go on about how awesome Machiavelli is but have only read the Prince make me angry. :(

Though, really, I don't know if you can really call Machiavelli a philosopher as much as an early political analyst and historiographer. If you can, then Khaldun belongs on this list, too, and far predates Machiavelli, though much less known in the West (though, as I understand it, he's a near cultural icon for many Arab academics).

My favourite is Camus, although I do quite enjoy Kierkegaard and some of Nietzsche's books.

However the most influential western Philosopher would have to be Descartes seconded by Hume. If we extend beyond western thought things just get too confusing.

I am currently studying Camus; I've been reading an essay of his, The Rebel, and one of his novels: The Stranger. His quotes are quite good to think about too; there are plenty of them.

You forgot Thomas Jefferson!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Hobbes.

Calvin is smarter.

Machiavelli hands down.

If you punch the OP in the gut I'll give you a cookie.

*Punches self in gut.*
I like chocolate chip. Send it to:
New Limacon
149 Limacon Drive
NSGeneral, Internet 12270

Actually, I just made a name out of two other names to try to sound knowledgeable about something I find extremely pretentious and a waste of time :p

Ah. Very post-modern of you.

I'd say Nietzsche for daring to have views that went against the grain.


And cause he has a awesome name.

Carl von Clausewitz. He gives an all encompassing philosophy on the nature and practice of warfare.

My top 4, among the poll-options, would be:
-Aristotle
-Plato + Socrates (Socrates is only known through Plato, so you can't really judge them apart)
-Kant
-Wittgenstein

The others either lack range or influence, really. Karl Marx may be notable for his communist ideas and the results that had on the world, but his philosophy was pretty lousy.
And Popper is notable mostly for one or two ideas in philosophy of science; which were superseded by the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos. Well, I'm sure he did more, but I never heard it come up in my philosophy classes.

Well, maybe I haven't studied them all enough to really appreciate all these philosophers (and others, like Heidegger, Hegel, Descartes, Spinoza, etc) properly. But it certainly seemed long enough.

Who was the chinese guy who said people should be made to feel ignorant so they don't run around causing trouble?

That guy.

Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus of Nazareth

I was just thinking that, actually, and wondering why he wasn't on the list. Maybe he didn't contribute enough to Christianity enough directly, or maybe he's not considered a philosophical figure because he's mainly known as a religious one.

I was just thinking that, actually, and wondering why he wasn't on the list. Maybe he didn't contribute enough to Christianity enough directly, or maybe he's not considered a philosophical figure because he's mainly known as a religious one.

I suspect the latter.

Out of that list, Hume - and not just because my university building is named after him.

If I had to pick anyone it would be John Stuart Mill.

Ted Kaczynski

Socrates is only known through Plato, so you can't really judge them apart

i think aristophanes might have something to say about that

What about John Locke? He has had plenty of influence on political thinkers including Thomas Jefferson.

Sun Tzu

But all of them subscribe to the folly that humans are strictly rational, it seems.
Do you mean that the philosophers listed suffer from, as humans, being strictly rational, or that they suffer from assuming that all humans are strictly rational?

I would challenge both accounts.


Actually, I just made a name out of two other names to try to sound knowledgeable about something I find extremely pretentious and a waste of time
Do you find the whole project of philosophy a waste of time, or do you more object to the idea of somebody 'being' a philosopher?


Hobbes? HOBBES?... Thank providence Enlightenment has happened since.
The Enlightenment doesn't detract from the fact Hobbes was a great philosopher, with huge influence in both political theory and the Western traditional view of human nature.


Calvin is smarter.
He may think that, but Hobbes has him beat at snowball fights.


I suspect the latter.
Then why does Western philosophy have such a massive Christian influence? For the majority of the last 1000 years, philosophy in the Western tradition has been concerned, almost exclusively, with Christian philosophy and how one relates to a world with the Christian God in it.

Claiming some sort of anti-Christian bias here is nothing sort of ignorance.

A more rational explanation that I would submit is the fact that, beyond a restatement of the Golden Rule and some talk of living a worth life, the Biblical character of Jesus doesn't expound a treatise of philosophy that hasn't been stated before. Those Christian philosophers that do base their views upon Jesus' teachings, (for example Anslem, Aquinas and, more recently, Tolstoy) expand greatly from the Biblical texts, while the much greater part of Christian philosophy is concerned with how to fit the Christian God into a rapidly changing view of the universe.

G'day, Bruce.

G'day, Bruce.

G'day, Bruce.

G'day, Bruce.

G'day, Bruce.

G'day, Bruce.


Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrick Hegel.

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schloegel.


There's nothin' Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raisin' of the wrist.

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.


John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away; half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.

Hobbes was fond of his dram.

Rene Descartes was a drunken fart. "I drink therefore I am."


Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed.

A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.


Rule # 1: No poofters.

Immanuel Kant, was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...

Immanuel Kant, was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...

Beat you by seconds.

Jesus of Nazareth

You bushevik, you even quote him.

Anyway, I've seen some people being nominated... people that I don't think can qualify as philosophers. Sun-Tzu, Jesus, von Clausewitz, Marx...
Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz qualify as military analysts and historians. Jesus (reportedly) as moralist. Karl Marx as economist and sociologist ante-litteram (yes, I've read the Grundrissen). But I think that a true philosopher's work should have a broader sight - going for general issues more than about details. Take Kant, Descartes, Spinoza, Aristoteles, or Hegel as examples of what I mean: these guys have written about the essence of knowledge (sophìa in greek) itself, not just about specifical issues and aspects of human life.

Beat you by seconds.

Bah, I never wanted to be posting on this stupid forum anyway! I wanted to be... a lumberjack! Yes! A lumberjack!

Then why does Western philosophy have such a massive Christian influence? For the majority of the last 1000 years, philosophy in the Western tradition has been concerned, almost exclusively, with Christian philosophy and how one relates to a world with the Christian God in it.

Claiming some sort of anti-Christian bias here is nothing sort of ignorance.

A more rational explanation that I would submit is the fact that, beyond a restatement of the Golden Rule and some talk of living a worth life, the Biblical character of Jesus doesn't expound a treatise of philosophy that hasn't been stated before. Those Christian philosophers that do base their views upon Jesus' teachings, (for example Anslem, Aquinas and, more recently, Tolstoy) expand greatly from the Biblical texts, while the much greater part of Christian philosophy is concerned with how to fit the Christian God into a rapidly changing view of the universe.

Oh relax, will you? I said I suspected the latter because people often categorize religious figures differently from philosophers, even if they overlap.

I wasn't thinking anti-Christianity at all, especially considering one of the options in the poll was a saint.

You bushevik, you even quote him.


huh? :confused:

Ayn Rand!

*ducks, covers, leg's it*

Ayn Rand!

*ducks, covers, leg's it*

Good one.

huh? :confused:

Really you didn't know?
It was in the campaign for the 2000 US presidential elections - or in the republican nomination campaign. Anyway there was the Shrub being interviewed, and the journalist asked the candidates "who's your favourite philosopher?" and Bush went "Jesus".:rolleyes:

Can Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin get some love? Sure, they're all religious figures but their philosophies had profound impact on the church and, (especially in the case of Luther and Calvin) upon history in general.

Among this list, I chose Plato primarily due to the fact that I found his works to be the most intriguing and I'm an ancient historian (specifically the Classical Era and even more specifically, the Romans), so I show some favoritism for classical thinkers. I also found Plato's works to be highly applicable to modern times, especially the Allegory of the Cave that he outlines in The Republic.

Ayn Rand!

*ducks, covers, leg's it*

Your honor, I objectivisticate.

I find the ideas of Epicurus make me moderately happy.

Many creatures, i suspect, even those pitiful humans of planet earth, would elect Gaetan Balboe to that post, had the but even remotely sensed his existence.

i for one though, having seen a bit more of our shaired universe in many of my former lives, hereby nominate the seamingly unremarkable Charles Cogsworth.

Balboe, as head of the Epiktestis project, known elsewhere as Deep Thought, certainly had the showier of great minds, some would even say the showiest and greatest mind the universe had ever seen, but Cogsworth, dull stone to outward seaming though he might appear, his thought balloons, which trailed behind and above his head, could and did, out philosophise the greatest thinkers of every world of several galaxies, the great Gaetan Balboe included.

as for those pitiful creatures of planet, as they call it, earth, if one must choose from among their pitiful lot, their greatest were often, so backward are they as a species, thought of as everything but philosophisers at all.

among them i would have to nominate such lights as lao tsu, kung fu tse, sidarta gutama, mahandus ghandi, and perhapse gnome chompsky and howard zenn. i would also nominate themnax of lananara, though this is quite impossible as his presence and mission there, his being of many lives and all but one born elsewhere, being strictly covert, owing to that beknighted world's all too neccessary interdection, however often the cubs of other worlds, spoiled brats with their daddy's shiney ufo, might buzz the ignorant natives just to stir them up, or occassionally abduct one to take back to their first year biology labs for disection.

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

Really you didn't know?
It was in the campaign for the 2000 US presidential elections - or in the republican nomination campaign. Anyway there was the Shrub being interviewed, and the journalist asked the candidates "who's your favourite philosopher?" and Bush went "Jesus".:rolleyes:

So...?

Impossibly hard question to answer with way too many options.

Can Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin get some love? Sure, they're all religious figures but their philosophies had profound impact on the church and, (especially in the case of Luther and Calvin) upon history in general.
Would it not be more accurate to call Luther and Calvin theologians?

EDIT> They were certainly thinking men, and I'm not denying that a theologian can also be a philosopher, but unlike someone such as Aquinas or Augustine, they were more concerned with the conduct of the Church and certain theological ramifications.

Would it not be more accurate to call Luther and Calvin theologians?

EDIT> They were certainly thinking men, and I'm not denying that a theologian can also be a philosopher, but unlike someone such as Aquinas or Augustine, they were more concerned with the conduct of the Church and certain theological ramifications.

Perhaps not Luther, but definitely Calvin I would say was a philosopher considering how radical his ideas about double predestination was which can have deep philosophical ramifications.

I am a fan on Nietzsche. I think that he really has the soundest philosophy. His recognition of the importance of requital or the lack thereof in the devellopment of mores really hits the nail on the head. I am pleased to see that he is doing well in the poll so far.

...I haven't even heard of 1...

The more people that say this, the better off the world in general is. Although Marxism as a relevant political philosophy is already mostly relegated to the PoliSci depts. of various universities,(at least in America) which is often the next best thing to oblivion.

I was going to nominate Augustine, Luther, and Calvin but I see someone has beat me to it.

I am a fan on Nietzsche. I think that he really has the soundest philosophy. His recognition of the importance of requital or the lack thereof in the devellopment of mores really hits the nail on the head. I am pleased to see that he is doing well in the poll so far.

I would suspect it is because his philosophy seems to appeal to spotty adolescent boys who share his lack of understanding of women.

I would suspect it is because his philosophy seems to appeal to spotty adolescent boys who share his lack of understanding of women.

Not only that. Also his emo-ness.:D

Not only that. Also his emo-ness.:D

Emo? Nietzsche was clearly an over-happy goth :P

Thomas More.

Emo? Nietzsche was clearly an over-happy goth :P

I think not. BUt he was definitely a goth.:D

Anyway, I've seen some people being nominated... people that I don't think can qualify as philosophers. Sun-Tzu, Jesus, von Clausewitz, Marx...
Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz qualify as military analysts and historians. Jesus (reportedly) as moralist. Karl Marx as economist and sociologist ante-litteram (yes, I've read the Grundrissen). But I think that a true philosopher's work should have a broader sight - going for general issues more than about details. Take Kant, Descartes, Spinoza, Aristoteles, or Hegel as examples of what I mean: these guys have written about the essence of knowledge (sophìa in greek) itself, not just about specifical issues and aspects of human life.

I suppose that's one of the many problems in making a poll like this, and why everyone on it is European. Who you consider the greatest philosopher depends on what your definition of philosophy is...which depends on who you consider a philosopher. For those of us influenced by Western tradition, i.e., everyone, it's almost a historical axiom that the Greeks were the first philosophers, and so we look at their methods for a definition of what philosophy is.

The more people that say this, the better off the world in general is.
Why is ignorance desirable to you?


I suppose that's one of the many problems in making a poll like this, and why everyone on it is European. Who you consider the greatest philosopher depends on what your definition of philosophy is...which depends on who you consider a philosopher.
Plus, it depends on whether you think 'Greatest Philosopher' is in any way meaningful.

For those of us influenced by Western tradition, i.e., everyone, it's almost a historical axiom that the Greeks were the first philosophers
I think that's unfair. We recognise the narrowness of our view of philosophy, that it is dominated by Western philosophers and (for folks in the UK and US at least) analytic philosophers. But we wouldn't make the silly mistake of thinking the entire of philosophy as Greek-based.

For a start, there's some very interesting parallels between much of Aristotle's work and Dharmic philosophy/religion; an obvious one being the concept of Dharma itself compared with Aristotle's notion of a thing's Nature. I don't think many who study philosophy would attempt to claim that the Hellenic philosophers 'started it all'.

I suppose that's one of the many problems in making a poll like this, and why everyone on it is European. Who you consider the greatest philosopher depends on what your definition of philosophy is...which depends on who you consider a philosopher. For those of us influenced by Western tradition, i.e., everyone, it's almost a historical axiom that the Greeks were the first philosophers, and so we look at their methods for a definition of what philosophy is.

Righty-ho... I would agree 100% if the poll was about "thinkers" or "essayers". I agree 99% because, you see, "philosophy" is directly from the greek term "philosophia" (love for knowledge), hence I think that, of course, when we talk philosophy the prime meaning is the greek one - thus giving to the western thought a bit of edge about philosophy, of course, since the western thought schools stem from greek thought.

So...?

So you quoted Bush by nominating Jesus of Nazareth as your favourite philosopher. I thought I was being very clear.

I agree 99% because, you see, "philosophy" is directly from the greek term "philosophia" (love for knowledge), hence I think that, of course, when we talk philosophy the prime meaning is the greek one
So I can't talk about the same philosophy if I'm speaking in Cantonese?

Your argument doesn't follow.

thus giving to the western thought a bit of edge about philosophy, of course, since the western thought schools stem from greek thought.
Partly.

Moreover, where does Ancient Greek thought stem from?


So you quoted Bush by nominating Jesus of Nazareth as your favourite philosopher. I thought I was being very clear.
Your being very clear that you have a fondness for fallacious reasoning.

"Bush said that" is not a good reason to dismiss a statement.

Lao Tse, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Joseph Campbell

So I can't talk about the same philosophy if I'm speaking in Cantonese?

Your argument doesn't follow.
I'll try to be clearer then.
When you say "philosophy", you mean "that kind of thought first devised by the Greeks about 2600 years ago". The set of "thought" includes the set of "philosophy", and many other sets.
So, you can talk philosophy in cantonese, or italian, or nahuatl - by translating the (originally) greek concepts into cantonese, or italian, or nahuatl.


Moreover, where does Ancient Greek thought stem from?

Mostly indigenous, with some contaminations from Phoenicians and Egyptians, as you can read in any high-school philosophy textbook.


Your being very clear that you have a fondness for fallacious reasoning.
"Bush said that" is not a good reason to dismiss a statement.
You ARE being very clear about yourself not understanding written text very well.
See above: I didn't say that "Bush said that" is a good reason to dismiss a statement. I merely said "Bush said that too". Are you perchance suggesting that discovering that one shares an opinion with Mr.Bush somewhat weakens that opinion? I am quite surprised.

Moreover, where does Ancient Greek thought stem from?

That's part of the reason, at least in the popular conception of philosophy, it is Greek-based. All of the history of Western thought books start with the Greeks, the evil Middle Ages were when everyone supposedly forgot about the Greeks, and the rebirth of civilization was the rediscovery of the Greeks. I don't think philosophy is necessarily Greek-based, I just think the Greeks have a fantastic PR department and that affects what people consider to be philosophy.

That's part of the reason, at least in the popular conception of philosophy, it is Greek-based. All of the history of Western thought books start with the Greeks, the evil Middle Ages were when everyone supposedly forgot about the Greeks, and the rebirth of civilization was the rediscovery of the Greeks. I don't think philosophy is necessarily Greek-based, I just think the Greeks have a fantastic PR department and that affects what people consider to be philosophy.

Exactly, the middle ages is when everyone forgot about ROME and the Renaissance is when they rediscovered ROME. Woo!:)

Nietzsche gets a bad reputation from all the assholes who've never read anything but one or two (out of context) quotes and then wander around justifying their dickishness as Nietzschean.
Also the sleeping with his sister thing. And the syphilis he might have suffered from.

Nietzsche gets a bad reputation from all the assholes who've never read anything but one or two (out of context) quotes and then wander around justifying their dickishness as Nietzschean.
Also the sleeping with his sister thing. And the syphilis he might have suffered from.

It's the mustache that turned me off.

I'll try to be clearer then.
When you say "philosophy", you mean "that kind of thought first devised by the Greeks about 2600 years ago".
No, I really don't, and neither do most (if any) philosophers or students of philosophy, Western or not.

Nor do I believe that the Ancient Greek thinkers first devised philosophy.

The set of "thought" includes the set of "philosophy", and many other sets.
Yet 'philosophy' doesn't fit neatly into the set of 'thought'...

So, you can talk philosophy in cantonese, or italian, or nahuatl - by
translating the (originally) greek concepts into cantonese, or italian, or nahuatl.
So would you dismiss any philosophy not based upon Ancient Greek thought, or not be willing to call it philosophy?

If so, that's a rather shaky position to hold.

Mostly indigenous, with some contaminations from Phoenicians and Egyptians, as you can read in any high-school philosophy textbook.
I don't know what you're reading, but it seems to be rather blinkered.

I didn't say that "Bush said that" is a good reason to dismiss a statement. I merely said "Bush said that too".
...and proceeded to attack NB for holding such a position.

Bad form.

Are you perchance suggesting that discovering that one shares an opinion with Mr.Bush somewhat weakens that opinion?
No, for that would be completely fallacious reasoning.

<snip>


You really should've given links.

Like this:

Bruce (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA&feature=related)

Philospher's song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C8CpQgNIiU)

I would suspect it is because his philosophy seems to appeal to spotty adolescent boys who share his lack of understanding of women.

Who here can really understand women?

Who here can really understand women?

:rolleyes:

Galileo. He's as close to one as you're going to get from me.


Philosophy is bullshit.
QFT!

Why is ignorance desirable to you?

Ignorance of some things is highly desirable. I remain happily ignorant of what it's like to be raped in prison, for instance, or what it feels like to lose a leg in a car accident.

Who here can really understand women?
All the women who post...?


Ignorance of some things is highly desirable. I remain happily ignorant of what it's like to be raped in prison, for instance, or what it feels like to lose a leg in a car accident.
No you're not, you're simply playing semantics. You aren't ignorant of the existence of rape in prison, or car accidents, and neither should you be of Marx/Marxism.

One doesn't have to be raped to acknowledge that it happens, and neither does one need to be a card-carrying Marxist to learn about Marx and Marxism; especially as he is one of the most influential political philosophers ever to have written.

I am sad that there were no Roman philosophers on the list such as Marcus Aurelius and Cireco that last one is spelt wrong.

No, I really don't, and neither do most (if any) philosophers or students of philosophy, Western or not.
Your opinions on philology and about the meaning of words aren't a problem of mine.
Also, explain the sources for your claim about "most philosophers etc" (of course, this will rapidly fall into a logical loop about the definition of philosophers, but it will be somewhat amusing anyway).


Nor do I believe that the Ancient Greek thinkers first devised philosophy.

So, pray, illuminate us about the real devisers of philosophy.:hail:

I don't believe. I have sources hinting at the greeks and no source hinting at someone else. Plus, they even invented the word we're still using, for Zeus' sake!


Yet 'philosophy' doesn't fit neatly into the set of 'thought'...

"Organized thought" or "systematized thought" might be better, then. Anyway, why do you say so? Knowledge is thought - processes of the brain if you prefer. Hence philosophy is thought.

I think that you're supposing that, by not calling "philosophy" things like - example - the Gospels or Sun Tzu's Art of War, I'm somewhat dismissing them as things of lesser value. This is not the case: just, they're other than philosophy.


So would you dismiss any philosophy not based upon Ancient Greek thought, or not be willing to call it philosophy?

I can call philosophy any kind of organized thought, even if it's not derived from greek thought, if said organized thought is about the same issues first introduced by Greek thinkers in a systematized way.


I don't know what you're reading, but it seems to be rather blinkered.

My sources about history of philosophy being mostly Nicola Abbagnano, Mario Vegetti and Ludovico Geymonat. Your sources being?


...and proceeded to attack NB for holding such a position.
Bad form.

You think that saying "you Bushevik" is "attacking someone"? You aren't quite used to discern between serious attacks and half-serious jokes, are you?

No, for that would be completely fallacious reasoning.
Yet you did implicitly suggest right that. So, I'm glad to see that you reject your previous statements, quod mihi erat demonstrandum.:)

i do believe the ancient chinese somewhat predated the 'ancient' greeks, as did of course the egyptians. pity they lacked means of familiarity with each other's learning and enlightenment. they all learned from focault ogg though, dispite willie mcgillie invariably taking credit for it. ogg it was, who often tutored plato in the later's youth, though no mention or credit is ever made nor given of his doing so.

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

Your opinions on philology and about the meaning of words aren't a problem of mine.
And your strange conflation of etymology with meaning isn't a problem of mine, but I'll still tackle it.

You claimed that philosophy, because the word is derived from Ancient Greek, must be directly linked to Ancient Greek thought, yet this simply doesn't follow. As you probably know, the word 'television' is derived from Ancient Greek and Latin, but that doesn't mean when we say 'television' we are discussing 'far sight', the literal translation of the Greek and Latin.

Similarly, when we discuss physics, we aren't limited to discussing those physical theories derived from Greek thought, and (rather obviously) when discussing philosophy we aren't simply discussing those philosophical theories derived from Greek thought.

Also, explain the sources for your claim about "most philosophers etc"
Ask anyone who has studied philosophy (there are a number on NS:G; Soheran, for example) whether the term refers solely to thought derived from the Hellenes.

So, pray, illuminate us about the real devisers of philosophy.
An impossible task, yet this doesn't therefore mean the Ancient Greeks developed their ideas in a vacuum. See above for my comments on how Aristotle's thought is very similar (influenced?) by Dharmic philosophy. The ancient Hellenic states were at a crossroads of trade and information, East and West. It would be utterly bizarre for there not to have been a cross-fertilisation of ideas and information from Middle Eastern, Asian, etc. sources.

Plus, they even invented the word we're still using, for Zeus' sake!
And Aristotle (probably) first coined the terms of 'biology' and 'physics', but that doesn't mean there were no biological or physical theories pre-Aristotle; quite the contrary.

"Organized thought" or "systematized thought" might be better, then. Anyway, why do you say so? Knowledge is thought - processes of the brain if you prefer. Hence philosophy is thought.
So you're equating philosophy with knowledge!

Quite obviously, philosophy is more than 'just' thought; the two are not the same thing. Philosophy involves thinking, sure, but just because something involves X doesn't mean it is X.

I think that you're supposing that, by not calling "philosophy" things like - example - the Gospels or Sun Tzu's Art of War, I'm somewhat dismissing them as things of lesser value.
No, I'm merely objecting to your unnecessary narrowing of the term 'philosophy' to only include theories derived from Greek thought. There are large areas of philosophy (Eastern philosophy, Islamic philosophy, African philosophy, etc.) that simply don't fit your definition. I've no qualms with you claiming that large parts of philosophy, almost all Western analytic philosophy, is derived from Ancient Greek thought, but it makes no sense to go on to make the much grander claim you are stating

My sources about history of philosophy being mostly Nicola Abbagnano, Mario Vegetti and Ludovico Geymonat. Your sources being?
Anthony Kenny, Bertrand Russell, A. C. Grayling, a number of scholars on Islamic and Dharmic thought, and a degree in philosophy (3/4 complete) from one of the ancient universities of Scotland... but I don't see what all this cock-waving achieves.

If you can explain your reasoning around your assertion that Ancient Greek thought was largely isolated, I'd appreciate it.

You think that saying "you Bushevik" is "attacking someone"?
You don't?

Yet you did implicitly suggest right that.
How does:

"Bush said that" is not a good reason to dismiss a statement.
implicitly suggest that I think "Bush said that" is a good reason to dismiss a statement?

quod mihi erat demonstrandum
My Latin's not too hot, but: 'Which me had to be proved'?

Socrates, because he questioned society and why people do things a certain way

QFT!
No...you see, "truth" is a philosophical concept. By suggesting that his statement is true, you're already presupposing a whole host of epistemological conclusions which belong into the realm of philosophy.

A Genius in it's most true form.
Quoted by many, understood by few, this man broke with thousands of years or Christian-Platonic thinking.
He was a revolutionary.

No...you see, "truth" is a philosophical concept. By suggesting that his statement is true, you're already presupposing a whole host of epistemological conclusions which belong into the realm of philosophy.
*applauds*

And your strange conflation of etymology with meaning isn't a problem of mine, but I'll still tackle it.
You claimed that philosophy, because the word is derived from Ancient Greek, must be directly linked to Ancient Greek thought, yet this simply doesn't follow.

I stated that philosophy today is still that thing that derives from greek philosophy, and the fact that throughout the ages there is a continual use of the word "philosophy" for that is a dead giveaway about the importance of keeping the roots of the thing we want to call "philosophy" where they are, that is in Greece.



As you probably know, the word 'television' is derived from Ancient Greek and Latin, but that doesn't mean when we say 'television' we are discussing 'far sight', the literal translation of the Greek and Latin.

Too bad that there isn't a continuum of the use of such word throughout the ages, as is the case for "philosophy"... so I'd say that your example doesn't fit in the same category.


Similarly, when we discuss physics, we aren't limited to discussing those physical theories derived from Greek thought, and (rather obviously) when discussing philosophy we aren't simply discussing those philosophical theories derived from Greek thought.

While discussing physics, we ARE still inside theories derived from Greek thought. Mostly Aristoteles.


Ask anyone who has studied philosophy (there are a number on NS:G; Soheran, for example) whether the term refers solely to thought derived from the Hellenes.

I did study philosophy, thank you. Maybe in Soheran's course the meaning of "philosophy" was wider than I think it should be; still, I gave account of my opinion about it, and stand by that.
Also you still don't understand. I didn't say that "it is philosophy just what is derived from ancient greek philosophy". I said "it is philosophy if it covers the same issues of that greek philosophy". Contents matter.



An impossible task,

So you posted a claim in a debate without being able to give argumentations in favour of it. hmm...


See above for my comments on how Aristotle's thought is very similar (influenced?) by Dharmic philosophy.
The ancient Hellenic states were at a crossroads of trade and information, East and West.
As you say, similar =/= influenced. Btw if A and B have the same idea, doesn't mean that A influenced B or vice versa.

The influences from outside the Mediterranean - Near Eastern area seem to be quite small. Hint: the Indians already used the zero and positional numeration, yet the Greeks - while usually well-versed in maths - never introduced that. It took 2000 years for the west to introduce positional numeration.




And Aristotle (probably) first coined the terms of 'biology' and 'physics', but that doesn't mean there were no biological or physical theories pre-Aristotle; quite the contrary.

Yet by "biology" today we still mean the same field of knowledge that Aristoteles meant.
Btw physics is just the rendition of "physikà", that is, the things of nature (physis) - so its use in Greek probabily pre-dates Aristoteles.


So you're equating philosophy with knowledge!

Are you aware of the concept of "inclusion", and its difference with the concept of "equation"?


Quite obviously, philosophy is more than 'just' thought; the two are not the same thing. Philosophy involves thinking, sure, but just because something involves X doesn't mean it is X.

More on what scale? ;) It could be less on another scale.
"Philosophy", as I stated before, is one of the possible subsets of "organized thought systems".


No, I'm merely objecting to your unnecessary narrowing of the term 'philosophy' to only include theories derived from Greek thought. There are large areas of philosophy ...
Again, see above: I simply claimed that I think ok to call "philosophy" some kind of thought systems, depending on the contents... not on the origins.


Anthony Kenny, Bertrand Russell, A. C. Grayling, a number of scholars on Islamic and Dharmic thought, and a degree in philosophy (3/4 complete) from one of the ancient universities of Scotland... but I don't see what all this cock-waving achieves.

Just exchanging sources, so I might take a look at new sources.


implicitly suggest that I think "Bush said that" is a good reason to dismiss a statement?
Do really I have to explain basical rhetorics to you?


My Latin's not too hot, but: 'Which me had to be proved'?
Which I had to prove.

I can't believe Wittgenstein only got one vote! He totally kicks Nietzsche's arse!

I stated that philosophy today is still that thing that derives from greek philosophy
Case in point.

You have to put 'Greek' in front of 'philosophy' to distinguish Greek philosophy from other philosophy, past and present. The term isn't 'owned' by the Ancient Greeks, and nor should it be.

and the fact that throughout the ages there is a continual use of the word "philosophy" for that is a dead giveaway about the importance of keeping the roots of the thing we want to call "philosophy" where they are, that is in Greece.
Absolute nonsense, and illogical reasoning to boot.

A word's originating language does not determine what that word defines, or the limits of its use. 'Democracy' is a Greek term also, or at least derived from a Greek term, but there were cultures that practised some forms of democracy which were completely isolated from the Ancient Greeks. Was the (limited) democracy practised by many peoples in the Americas not actually democracy because they hadn't heard of Aristotle? Of course not.

Did the Indus valley civilisations not have irrigation or plumbing because they never used the words 'irrigation' or 'plumbing'? Of course not.

Did Amazonian tribes not practice religion because they had never heard of the term 'religion'? Of course not.

And did the many, many cultures with a long philosophical history not practice philosophy because they never used the term 'philosophy'? Of course not.

Too bad that there isn't a continuum of the use of such word throughout the ages, as is the case for "philosophy"...
If you can show that the term 'philosophy' has only ever been used to refer to Greek-derived thinking, I'd be impressed.

You'd also have to explain to the Chinese philosopher who gave a talk at the philosophy conference I recently attended just how, when discussing Confucian philosophy, he isn't actually discussing philosophy.

While discussing physics, we ARE still inside theories derived from Greek thought. Mostly Aristoteles.
Yet there are physical theories of the world conjured up all over the world, without deriving from Ancient Greek thought. You can't be seriously suggesting that you can't call something 'physics' or 'a physical theory of the world around us' unless it's derived from Greek thought... can you?

I said "it is philosophy if it covers the same issues of that greek philosophy".
Which is obvious nonsense, for there are philosophical matters seperate from those discussed in the Ancient Greek states, philosophical matters discussed before the Ancient Greek states, philosophical discussions discussed at the same time as the Ancient Greek states on the other side of the planet.

Your position entails that nothing prior to or seperate from the Hellenic tradition can be called 'philosophy', but, when we regard philosophy from Africa, Asia, etc., we can see this is raw tripe.

So you posted a claim in a debate without being able to give argumentations in favour of it.
By all means, show me where I said that I knew who 'devised philosophy'.

All I said was that I believed, with good reason, that it's rather unlikely no human ever discussed philosophical concepts prior to the pre-Socratics.

Btw if A and B have the same idea, doesn't mean that A influenced B or vice versa.
Of course, and the question mark indicated such an ambiguity.

Are you aware of the concept of "inclusion", and its difference with the concept of "equation"?
Your words:

"Knowledge is thought... Hence philosophy is thought."

What are you stating, beyond 'philosophy is knowledge, and thus philosophy is thought'.

"Philosophy", as I stated before, is one of the possible subsets of "organized thought systems".
That's more acceptable.

Just exchanging sources, so I might take a look at new sources.
Anthony Kenny has a good new series out on Western philosophy; Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is a classic, though it criminally overlooks many Christian philosophers. If you've a copy of Nicomachean Ethics to hand, grab any half-decent examination of the Dharmic religions to have a gander at the similarities.

Do really I have to explain basical rhetorics to you?
Looks like it.

Which I had to prove.
Aha.

I'd have to say Soren Kierkegaard. While I may be an ex-Christian, I admire the balls it took to philosophically oppose both the state and the church at the same time (as the Danish State-sanctioned church), which were two potent forces in his time.

No you're not, you're simply playing semantics. You aren't ignorant of the existence of rape in prison, or car accidents, and neither should you be of Marx/Marxism. One doesn't have to be raped to acknowledge that it happens, and neither does one need to be a card-carrying Marxist to learn about Marx and Marxism.

You're confusing knowledge of a thing with experience of that thing. While I am intellectually aware of the existence of prison rape, traumatic amputations, and Marxism, I remain happily ignorant of what is like to experience those things, and would not wish those experiences of anyone else.

I remain happily ignorant of what is like to experience those things

Then don't experience being a Marxist.

But that's no excuse for ignorance about the content of Marxism.

my sister,who is studying philosophy in High School said that philosophy is just total rubbish.

who is studying philosophy in High School

Well, no wonder then.

I find the ideas of Epicurus make me moderately happy.
I agree and write him in as well.

my sister,who is studying philosophy in High School said that philosophy is just total rubbish.
Well, I did as well, and really started liking it. Your point?

Then don't experience being a Marxist.
But that's no excuse for ignorance about the content of Marxism.

If a thing is of no useful purpose, why bother myself with it? Like Sherlock Holmes, I have better lumber to stock my brain attic with then irrelevant political philosophies from the ash-heap of history.

If a thing is of no useful purpose, why bother myself with it?

If you ever intend to debate against it, then it serves a very useful purpose to be informed about it. Besides, if you are ignorant of the contents of Marxism, why are you so quick to make a judgement against it?

Can't believe Jean-Paul Sartre isn't on this list...'Being and Nothingness' is one of the greatest writings of all time :confused:

Nietzsche is over rated.

I can't believe Wittgenstein only got one vote! He totally kicks Nietzsche's arse!I've added my vote for him.

My favorite philosophers:

Wittgenstein
Lao-tse (the philosophy only, Taoism is incomprehensible). If you've read the Tao of Pooh then that's what I like about it.
Kierkegaard

Curiously these seem to overlap and complement each other.

Wow, I'm surprised Aristotle's lead is as small as it is. I mean, he isn't the most exciting or even interesting, but of that list, and perhaps any, I don't see how you can argue that he isn't the most historically significant.

If you ever intend to debate against it, then it serves a very useful purpose to be informed about it. Besides, if you are ignorant of the contents of Marxism, why are you so quick to make a judgement against it?

Because I've seen the effects and consequences of it's implementation on people and society. Those same effects and consequences would also seem to indicate that swift interdiction is what is needed when the specter of Marx and Engels rears its ugly head, not 'debate.'

René Descartes Plz.