NationStates Jolt Archive

So, with all the talk lately on NSG of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand, whose writings we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with, I just want to ask NSG: Who is your favorite philosopher? They could be political philosophers, metaphysicists, moralists, etc.

Im a big fan of Machiavelli and Hobbes as far as political philosophers go. I also like Plato's political philosophy, but not so much of his other writings.

I also love Nietzsche, but more because I find him to be interesting, complex, and brilliant, but I dont necissarially agree with him on everything. In fact, some of his ideas are down right repulsive. But I agree with enough of it to make it interesting.

How about everyone else?

George Carlin. *nod*

So, with all the talk lately on NSG of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand, whose writings we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with, I just want to ask NSG: Who is your favorite philosopher? They could be political philosophers, metaphysicists, moralists, etc.

Im a big fan of Machiavelli and Hobbes as far as political philosophers go. I also like Plato's political philosophy, but not so much of his other writings.

I also love Nietzsche, but more because I find him to be interesting, complex, and brilliant, but I dont necissarially agree with him on everything. In fact, some of his ideas are down right repulsive. But I agree with enough of it to make it interesting.

How about everyone else?


To my mind philosophy is not like cake.:D

Kant, no doubt.

Also on my list are Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Descartes, Russell, Galileo and Comte.

Nietzsche is the man.

I think Marx had a some interesting insights into society, even if people like Lenin and Stalin fucked them up.

Kierkegaard had cool hair, but I'm basically too stupid to go into philosophy at any depth, so I couldn't really say.

To my mind philosophy is not like cake.:D

What about parfaits? Parfaits are delicious!

kant, no doubt.


.......


Gtfo.


;)

Mine is Paul Tillich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich). His Kairos philosophy has always intrigued me. Making that distinction between time (chronos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronos)) and kairos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos) (oportune time) is fascinating.

What about parfaits? Parfaits are delicious!

No philosophy is not like any food. I can't pick my fave(now having said that I quite dig Sartre).

No philosophy is not like any food.
Lychees?

Nietzsche is the fashionable student philosopher - everyone goes through a phase of thinking he's cool. But he still deserves Kudos for writing texts such as"Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Am So Clever", "Why I Write Such Good Books", and "Why I Am a Destiny". What a guy.

Fave, probably Wittgenstein for going to the heart of language and its limitations (which underpins any further discussion of anything). But Kant is up there for building the best total philosophical system from scratch. I also still enjoy the essays of Bertrand Russell (hooray for womanizing philosophers, in praise of idleness!)

No philosophy is not like any food. I can't pick my fave(now having said that I quite dig Sartre).

Philosophy is like an onion.

The deeper you look into it, the more it makes you cry. :(

No philosophy is not like any food. I can't pick my fave(now having said that I quite dig Sartre).

Kant is like matjes. Fresh and interesting.
Hegel is like Sachertorte. Good and heavy.
Russell is like Barolo. Profound and stimulating.
Galileo is like spaghetti al pomodoro. Basical, simple, for every day.
Marx is like Mar(k)s bars. Tasty and intoxicating.

Ayn Rand is like a cheap subvariant of McDonald's. No, wait. Even worse. Like chewing-gum. Cheap and useless.

Machiavelli and Khaldun, if you can call them philosophers though, to be honest, they were historiographers and political analysts, with Khaldun being a sociologist, as well (given the context that there were none of those fields existed distinctly in his time).

*Tries to remember back to the political philosophy module I did in my first year*. I vaguely thinking John Rawls made some decent points. Most of what I had to study was utter bullshit, however. For instance, Hobbes. So many weeks of reading Hobbes. Hatehatehate.

Back at school, my favourite was anyone with a silly beard who talked about the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This was, of course, before I knew anything about history or politics, so I'm going to claim this was excusable.

Hume. Basically: All you philosophers such stop messing around with this enlightenment nonsense and go and get real jobs. What a guy.

George Carlin. *nod*
I agree, LG, comedians do make the best philosophers, oftentimes they tell society exactly what it needs to hear. Under normal conditions what some of them say may get a person smacked in the face, but in the context of comedy they do make you think, "Hey, (insert random comedian- Foxworthy, Carlin, Dunham, Mencia, etc) does raise an interesting point- why do(n't) we do..."

Also, I consider Marx (no, not groucho:p) to be interesting, and Freud was right on the money in explaining human nature minus the complexes and psychosexual stages. Amitai Etzion(?), is a prominent communitarian political philosopher whom I agree with some of the time. Also Carl Milstead Jr, a former leader of LRC branch of the LP, has interesting ideas about politics. But mostly my personal philosophy is based off of the teachings of Christ and the Torah/pentateuch.

Mine would be in the category of Christian philosophers such as Polycarp, St. Ignatius or even Amman Hennasy (his views on Christian anarchy are beautiful to say the least)

Mine would be in the category of Christian philosophers such as Polycarp, St. Ignatius or even Amman Hennasy (his views on Christian anarchy are beautiful to say the least)

Now that you mention it, I forgot to name St. Augustine of Hippona as one of my favorite philosophers too.

Im a big fan of Machiavelli and Hobbes as far as political philosophers go.
Im a big fan of Calvin and Hobbes as far as political philosophers go.

I don't have a favourite, I very much like Hume, I very much like Kant, I very much like Wittgenstein, I very much like Russell, the list will go on and on.

I'm obviosuly not really in a position to state this, but I think Nietzsche (or at least his philosophy) is overrated, I don't actually think he came up with anything truly original. Although I will admit that the man himself is very interesting.

Machiavelli is great, but he is more of a scientist than a philosopher.

Classically speaking, I very much like Heraclitus and Seneca--I also like Voltaire, but things go down hill from there, with my preferences being toward extreme pessimists.

Fave, probably Wittgenstein for going to the heart of language and its limitations (which underpins any further discussion of anything). But Kant is up there for building the best total philosophical system from scratch. I also still enjoy the essays of Bertrand Russell (hooray for womanizing philosophers, in praise of idleness!)

Heh, we pretty much have the exact same interest in philosophers.

Machiavelli is great, but he is more of a scientist than a philosopher.

Classically speaking, I very much like Heraclitus and Seneca--I also like Voltaire, but things go down hill from there, with my preferences being toward extreme pessimists.

You're a neoclassicist, Parkus, in all the sense of the word.

Machiavelli is great, but he is more of a scientist than a philosopher.


Heh, I haven't heard him described that way in a while.

You're a neoclassicist, Parkus, in all the sense of the word.

In most senses, anyway; there is a lot of Romantic music I enjoy, though I admit that Haydn is unbeatable.

In most senses, anyway; there is lot of Romantic music I enjoy, though I admit that Haydn is unbeatable.

In music I enjoy the Romantics. In philosophy, I enjoy the classical masters like Seneca and Cicero and the medievalists like Duns Scotus, St. Augustine and, of course, from the 20th. century, Paul Tillich.

Heh, I haven't heard him described that way in a while.

What else besides political scientist/analyst/historiographer could you describe him as? Granted, I've only read Discourses on Livy and The Prince, but in neither of those did he make normative statements or delve into metaphysics. He looked at his grasp of history, and argued cause-effect interactions.

Also, wtf, so much Machilove but no Khaldun. :(

Heh, we pretty much have the exact same interest in philosophers.

:eek:

marry me!

Sartre. Possibly Kierkegaard.

I agree, LG, comedians do make the best philosophers, oftentimes they tell society exactly what it needs to hear. Under normal conditions what some of them say may get a person smacked in the face, but in the context of comedy they do make you think, "Hey, (insert random comedian- Foxworthy, Carlin, Dunham, Mencia, etc) does raise an interesting point- why do(n't) we do..."

Dun haaaam. :D

What else besides political scientist/analyst/historiographer

What's wrong with just that?

the pre-eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand. I have familiarized myself with her writings.

Heh, I haven't heard him described that way in a while.

He was purely concerned with cause and effect, which is why he studied history so much; his "philosophy" was simply of a series of manuals on how to do one's job well, if it involves politics or the military.

Dun haaaam. :D

Dooot com.

the pre-eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand. I have familiarized myself with her writings.

*shrugs*

dooot com.

:D :D :D

I tend to prefer Jose Jalapeno.

Lao Tzu.

Frank Herbert.

My mom.

:eek:

marry me!

But there's got to be one philosopher that I love and you hate or vice versa. Who knows, we may have completely opposing perspectives, even though we like the same philosophers. I can't agree fully with anyone on this forum, it just ain't right! :tongue:

Lao Tzu.

Frank Herbert.

My mom.

If you're a fan of the philosophical underpinnings of Frank Herbert's writing you should look up Gene Wolfe. His Book of the New Sun is easily one of the best sci fi series I've ever read.

He was purely concerned with cause and effect, which is why he studied history so much; his "philosophy" was simply of a series of manuals on how to do one's job well, if it involves politics or the military.

Yeah but I would hardly say that his 'hypotheses' are from rigorously empirical and testable data such that it would merit the label scientific. Perhaps in a broader sense of the word.

In music I enjoy the Romantics.

The philosophy of period is tad too optimistic for my taste.

In philosophy, I enjoy the classical masters like Seneca and Cicero and the medievalists like Duns Scotus, St. Augustine and, of course, from the 20th. century, Paul Tillich.

Fine choices; St. Augustine was the most incredible blend of faith and rationalism ever to find itself in one man; I suppose you know he speculas breifly about evolution?

What's wrong with just that?

Oh, nothing, at all. Like I said, the reason I have such respect for both Machiavelli and Khaldun is that they were, when it comes down to it, social scientists and analysts during times when no one else even knew wtf social science was. But they are often mis-labeled as philosophers because at that time any abstract thinking was considered philosophy.

Oh, nothing, at all. Like I said, the reason I have such respect for both Machiavelli and Khaldun is that they were, when it comes down to it, social scientists and analysts during times when no one else even knew wtf social science was. But they are often mis-labeled as philosophers because at that time any abstract thinking was considered philosophy.

I think your definition of philosopher is too specific, after all, politics in my mind is just a field of philosophy and ethics.

I like odds and ends of a wide range of philosophers.

John Rawls, John Stuart Mill, and Reinhold Niebuhr deserve special mention, however.

I also have a perverse fondness for the prose of Thomas Hobbes. "... and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Great stuff.

I have yet to read The Prince (although it's on my bookcase) . Does anyone have an opinion on whether its martial insights are better/worse than the Art of War?

John Rawls

Yeah, I like his views expressed in a theory of justice, I think that was a very important work. Although I prefer the ideas of Rawls, I prefer the way Rawls' major opponent Nozick writes.

I think your definition of philosopher is too specific, after all, politics in my mind is just a field of philosophy and ethics.

Political philosophy is only philosophy if it incorporates normative judgments, in my mind. This differentiates it from Political Analysis, which I categorize Machiavelli and Khaldun as being very much practitioners of even if their methods and information were neither as developed nor as accurate as what we have today, which looks at correlations and posits a causal connection and then argues for through open analysis of the data. The third field, as far as I see it, is Political Science, which is by and large restricted to micro-politics, as testing a hypothesis is usually very costly. The three often overlap but I feel they are distinct between themselves.

Political philosophy is only philosophy if it incorporates normative judgments, in my mind. This differentiates it from Political Analysis, which I categorize Machiavelli and Khaldun as being very much practitioners of even if their methods and information were neither as developed nor as accurate as what we have today, which looks at correlations and posits a causal connection and then argues for through open analysis of the data. The third field, as far as I see it, is Political Science, which is by and large restricted to micro-politics, as testing a hypothesis is usually very costly. The three often overlap but I feel they are distinct between themselves.

Meh. These attempts to categorize and pigeonhole thinkers are as boring, absurd, and ineffective as attempts to categorize "real punk" or "real rock" from other types of music.

If you're a fan of the philosophical underpinnings of Frank Herbert's writing you should look up Gene Wolfe. His Book of the New Sun is easily one of the best sci fi series I've ever read.

Oooh. Thanks.

I have yet to read The Prince (although it's on my bookcase) . Does anyone have an opinion on whether its martial insights are better/worse than the Art of War?

I prefer Le Petit Prince.

Political philosophy is only philosophy if it incorporates normative judgments, in my mind. This differentiates it from Political Analysis, which I categorize Machiavelli and Khaldun as being very much practitioners of even if their methods and information were neither as developed nor as accurate as what we have today, which looks at correlations and posits a causal connection and then argues for through open analysis of the data. The third field, as far as I see it, is Political Science, which is by and large restricted to micro-politics, as testing a hypothesis is usually very costly. The three often overlap but I feel they are distinct between themselves.

I disagree completely that philosophy only involves normative judgements, I mean three quarters of philosophy these days is about various arguments to do with why you can't make normative judgements. Regardless, Machiavelli did make normative judgements anyway.

I disagree completely that philosophy only involves normative judgements, I mean three quarters of philosophy these days is about various arguments to do with why you can't make normative judgements. Regardless, Machiavelli did make normative judgements anyway.

I'm not saying philosophy only makes normative judgments, I'm saying that as soon as you begin including normative statements within your work, it has shifted towards philosophy or, rather, put on that coat, as well. I haven't read Prince in a while but I don't remember any normative statements that would have been considered such by himself and others of his time; Discourses on Livy certainly maintained an overall focus on analysis rather than what is the good and what is the bad.

Again, though, I'm not saying philosophy only deals with normative statements, but that philosophy is one of those disciplines of which normative statements is a subset.

The philosophy of period is tad too optimistic for my taste.

Indeed, they did excel in music and painting, but the philosophy's a tad tedious.

Fine choices; St. Augustine was the most incredible blend of faith and rationalism ever to find itself in one man; I suppose you know he speculas breifly about evolution?

Yes, I know, and he was on a nice path there.

Oooh. Thanks.



I prefer Le Petit Prince.

You will not be disappointed, though the language can get a little heavy sometimes (Wolfe often uses archaic Latin and Greek phrases for things, like writing hydrargyrum instead of mercury). But it's an enjoyable series nonetheless, and very thought provoking.
The first book is Shadow of the Torturer, though you can often find it bundled with the second book as Shadow and Claw

Discourses on Livy certainly maintained an overall focus on analysis rather than what is the good and what is the bad.


That's because his premise was a normative judgement (it is good to have a virtuous and functioning state and all that), so his work is about working out how to best achieve this end, by any means necessary.

I disapprove of everyone mentioning Kierkegaard.

Descartes and his black bile, amazing wit on that man writing all that satire.
but seriously he did alter philosophy quite a bit, although he was probably a better mathematician and physicist than a philosopher.

I prefer Le Petit Prince.

St. Exupéry's The Little Prince?

I disapprove of everyone mentioning Kierkegaard.

I've never read any of his works or studied him in anyway really, so I have no opinion.

I've never read any of his works or studied him in anyway really, so I have no opinion.

To be honest, its my anti-Christian bias showing. I never thought devout Christianity melded well with philosophy.

Epicurus, Lao Tzu, Daffy Duck

To be honest, its my anti-Christian bias showing. I never thought devout Christianity melded well with philosophy.

Neither did I. But tbh, after I read St. Augustine. That changed drastically. Of course, that may as well be that St. Augustine wasn't always a devout Christian, he was highly influenced by Plato and by Manichaeisim.

Neither did I. But tbh, after I read St. Augustine. That changed drastically. Of course, that may as well be that St. Augustine wasn't always a devout Christian, he was highly influenced by Plato and by Manichaeisim.

Even more so with Aquinas, another great Christian philosopher.

Ice-T.

Even more so with Aquinas, another great Christian philosopher.

True, but the influence of Plotinus in Augustine's work makes him seem so current, in so many ways. To me, he's more relevant (but not more important) than Aquinas in the devfelopment of Western Christianity.

Even more so with Aquinas, another great Christian philosopher.

I disagree, Aquinas to me is by far the worst, and exemplifies what I always felt was wrong with Christian "philosophers".

I disagree, Aquinas to me is by far the worst, and exemplifies what I always felt was wrong with Christian "philosophers".

Really? What specifically did he say that made you feel that way?

Ice-T.

It is hard to disagree with his insight that Soulja boy killed hip hop.

Really? What specifically did he say that made you feel that way?

Its been some time to be honest, I read him my sophmore year of high school. It was more or less his stances towards women (this is, of course, normal for the time period) and morality that annoyed me. His arguements for the existance of God I also found to be...well, rather logically poor for a philosopher.

He is also responsible for the stances the Catholic Church took for the following years, and I hold that against him.


There was more, but again, its been...5 years?...since I read him.

St. Exupéry's The Little Prince?

Bien sur.

Really? What specifically did he say that made you feel that way?

I think his model of god, severely influenced by Plato, is simply wrong.

That's because his premise was a normative judgement (it is good to have a virtuous and functioning state and all that), so his work is about working out how to best achieve this end, by any means necessary.

Ah, fair enough. I'd still categorize him as predominantly an analyst (again, these are also just categories that I use for my own frame of reference...I don't claim that they are, or even should be...well, yes I do, I think they are useful but whatever...accepted by anyone else) as his works did not emphasize arguing for why it is good to keep a state functional, but rather simply how to do so and, specifically, the advantages and disadvantages of the two governing systems he was familiar with.

Its been some time to be honest, I read him my sophmore year of high school. It was more or less his stances towards women (this is, of course, normal for the time period) and morality that annoyed me. His arguements for the existance of God I also found to be...well, rather logically poor for a philosopher.

He is also responsible for the stances the Catholic Church took for the following years, and I hold that against him.


There was more, but again, its been...5 years?...since I read him.

Well Aquinas wrote a lot of stuff, high school reading of him probably wont do him justice. When I mean great, I don't mean in the sense that I really respect his views specifically, more the fact that he was influential and pioneering with an interesting outlook, and a good writer.

Ah, fair enough. I'd still categorize him as predominantly an analyst (again, these are also just categories that I use for my own frame of reference...I don't claim that they are, or even should be...well, yes I do, I think they are useful but whatever...accepted by anyone else) as his works did not emphasize arguing for why it is good to keep a state functional, but rather simply how to do so and, specifically, the advantages and disadvantages of the two governing systems he was familiar with.

True but I think his emphasis on a means to an end approach is significant enough that I would say he was trying to express philosophical importance of it.

I think his model of god, severely influenced by Plato[/QU is simply wrong.

But if you have strong opinions on the nature of God (which I don't, since I don't believe in him), then you're going to think that 99% of all philosophers who try to describe the nature of God are wrong, unless it coincides with your actual view.

Bien sur.

Eh bien.

I find Philosophy one of the most tedious and boring subjects of life.

I find Philosophy one of the most tedious and boring subjects of life.

Then you're doing it wrong :p

I find Philosophy one of the most tedious and boring subjects of life.

Interesting enough for you to post here to tell us that, apperantly.

But if you have strong opinion on the nature of God (which I don't, since I don't believe in him), then you're going to think that 99% of all philosophers who try to describe the nature of God are wrong, unless it coincides with your actual view.

Not really. The omniscient/omnipotent/transcendent/infinite/omnibenevolent/perfect God of Aquinas is logically impossible using deductive logic.

Like having omniscience and free will.

Then you're doing it wrong :p

I think Adunabar is just approaching the subject a bit wrong. Hopefully, when he grows older, he'll be able to appreciate philosophy a bit better.

And Adunabar, I didn't post this as an afront to you or anything.

George Carlin. *nod*

I never actually found him funny, and his manner wasn't really my taste, however, what that man had to say was always right. Add Bill Hicks to that, and you have the kings.

George Carlin. *nod*

I would have to in large part agree there. If ever there was anyone truly in touch with what's really going on, it was George Carlin.

Im a big fan of Calvin and Hobbes as far as political philosophers go.

Meh, beat me to it :/

Not really. The omniscient/omnipotent/transcendent/infinite/omnibenevolent/perfect God of Aquinas is logically impossible using deductive logic.

I don't think that idea of God is emphasised that much by Aquinas, as opposed to other major Christian philosophers.

I don't think that idea of God is emphasised that much by Aquinas, as opposed to other major Christian philosophers.

Like St. Bernard de Clairevaux?

As the incorporeal specter of the only real, published philosopher here, I'm glad to see at least a few people have departed from the canonical "philosophers" and embraced those apt enough to convey philosophy through fiction.

You should also check out the following Eminent Philosophers:

Theodor Seuss Giesel: His famous work "Star Bellied Sneeches" is a fine lesson the importance of rational self-interest, as exhibited by the protagonist of the story, the Fix It Up Chappie, Mr. McBean.

[I would warn you to eschew Dr. Geisel's other works, however, because he becomes too complex and multi-dimensional in his characters for a serious work on philosophy. My own works teach more, without the burden of nuanced literary technique.]

Coen Brothers: Their films are vessels of important philosophy. For example, "Big Lebowski" is a fine cautionary tale about a man with no drive, no self esteem, and no reason, who in the end, winds up covered in the ashes of his dead friend. If you similarly reject Objectivism, you are categorically guaranteed the same fate.

Similarly, their film "There Will Be Blood" shows you the tremendous heights a man can reach through the supreme virtues of ego, motivation, and cleverness.

That said, I implore you to reject the recommendations of Nanatsu no Tsuki, who has no campus groups dedicated to her work. She has nothing to compete with, aside from actual exposure to philosophy and the fact that she doesn't look like William Dafoe in particularly uninspired drag.

I just want to ask NSG: Who is your favorite philosopher?
Terry Pratchett. Seriously.

the pre-eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand. I have familiarized myself with her writings.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6229/motivator5220500al0.jpg

Sun Tzu for the Art of War - I am kind of a Risk fan

Thomas Aquinas was good for Christianity

Buddha can be considered on as well

How many other people are singing the Monty Python song in the head

"Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable"

Like St. Bernard de Clairevaux?

Dunno, never read anything by old Bernard.

Dunno, never read anything by old Bernard.

His theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Clairvaux#Theology) is very interesting. And of course, he's the author of the monastic order codex monasteries today are ruled by.

His theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Clairvaux#Theology) is very interesting. And of course, he's the author of the monastic order codex monasteries today are ruled by.And of course, a major proponent of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

And of course, a major proponent of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

He wasn't the only one.

He wasn't the only one.
But the most important.

But the most important.

That doesn't mean his theology isn't interesting.

Yoda.

"Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."

That doesn't mean his theology isn't interesting.
Mein Kampf is "interesting" in the same sense. I found the discussion somewhere on the links between Bernard's theology and the turn of Christianity toward increased murderousness in his period in the book Sword of Constantine helpful, but I don't know how easy it would be for you to locate that book.

Mein Kampf is "interesting" in the same sense. I found the discussion somewhere on the links between Bernard's theology and the turn of Christianity toward increased murderousness in his period in the book Sword of Constantine helpful, but I don't know how easy it would be for you to locate that book.

I think, mind you, that the library at La Complutence University may have a copy.

Favorite Old Dead Bastard: Nietzsche or Heidegger. It is a hard decision for me to make, because Heidegger was a Nazi, and while there are many arguments to excuse his involvement (eg, he was doing what it took to survive, he only wanted what was best for Germany/the University/whatever, etc), that sort of association is a definite "Naughty." Nietzsche was also wittier than Heidegger, and much more pleasing to read. But Heidegger was probably the most influential 20th century philosopher, and most of Being and Time was really brilliant and...
AAGGGGGHHH!

Favorite Still Living Bastard: Galen Strawson (as if I had a choice).
Favorite Joke Answer: Ben Weasel

I think, mind you, that the library at La Complutence University may have a copy.
OK then. It's long, and depressing, but I would give it a recommend.

OK then. It's long, and depressing, but I would give it a recommend.

Thanks.

What are your thought on Emile Durkheim?

Functionalism is okay but it misses out some rather important points about society. and he says the poor are supposed to be poor for the system to work.
amongst other things.

I'll name a few, that either have not been mentioned, or haven't been mentioned all that many times:

Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi, because I find their works on war incredibly interesting, and they can in many ways be applied to life. But even the application to war is fascinating, though, of course, I hope that I never have to apply it outside of games and war simulations.

Richard Stallman, because I think much of his reasoning on software freedom specifically and so-called "intellectual property" rights generally is excellent.

Also, I'd like to second (or third or fourth or whatever) George Carlin. An excellent comedian with an excellent ability to use his gift at comedy to reveal important truths about society and our collective ridiculousness.

Thanks.

What are your thought on Emile Durkheim?That he is a name which I recognize and can't quite place, belying my pose as a thoroughly-educated know-it-all in every subject... Do you recommend him?

That he is a name which I recognize and can't quite place, belying my pose as a thoroughly-educated know-it-all in every subject... Do you recommend him?

one of the main contributors to Functionalist theory, and a philosopher too i think.

I have yet to read The Prince (although it's on my bookcase) . Does anyone have an opinion on whether its martial insights are better/worse than the Art of War?

They are different subjects, like writing and painting. In my opinion, though, The Discourses is Machiavelli's best work by far.

one of the main contributors to Functionalist theory, and a philosopher too i think.
Biggy in philosophy of mind, if I'm not confusing him with someone else.
In my opinion, though, The Discourses is Machiavelli's best work by far.

Agreed. Prince is so over-rated and Discourses so often passed over for it that it's almost infuriating.

Agreed. Prince is so over-rated and Discourses so often passed over for it that it's almost infuriating.

I would not say that The Prince is over-rated; it is an excellent work. I would simply say that the far better Discourses is obscenely under-rated, possibly because it is longer.

As the incorporeal specter of the only real, published philosopher here

this statement is untrue on an astounding number of levels

this statement is untrue on an astounding number of levels

Before you get too angry, that is just another one of Hammurarabs (or however its spelt :p) satire accounts.

Before you get too angry, that is just another one of Hammurarabs (or however its spelt :p) satire accounts.

its not anger. more like admiration.

this statement is untrue on an astounding number of levels

I meant I am the only real, published philosopher here on Nationstates.

There used to be one other, Neo Art (who IRL is actually William F. Buckley), until he died last February. The account has since been automated spambot messages.

Reading the works of other philosophers is a sign of weakness. I invented my own metaphysics, dadgummit, and I'm not about to let some hoity-toity college man telling me why my theory of the Being as Existence is flawed.

Reading the works of other philosophers is a sign of weakness. I invented my own metaphysics, dadgummit, and I'm not about to let some hoity-toity college man telling me why my theory of the Being as Existence is flawed.

You're lucky. I didn't realize how flawed the pantheon of regarded philosophers was until I wasted some of my time at UoP reading their stuff.

When you die, you should join me and my club in the afterlife. L. Ron and me found a great flat...we're saving a room for Ann Coulter, but you can have the couch.

You're lucky. I didn't realize how flawed the pantheon of regarded philosophers was until I wasted some of my time at UoP reading their stuff.

When you die, you should join me and my club in the afterlife. L. Ron and me found a great flat...we're saving a room for Ann Coulter, but you can have the couch.
Only if its in the room with the TV. My philosophy requires I watch TV.

I like Hobbes' views on religion. Or Locke in general.

Only if its in the room with the TV. My philosophy requires I watch TV.

Great, the shows in the afterlife are really, really good. We have all the best writers.

Dante Alighieri has a show called "Punk'd in the Afterlife" where he meets in the incoming n00bs and tells them about some horrible fate that they've been consigned to, and records their reactions. Then he tells them that, no, we all just sort of hang out and talk.

He told this one lady who died before she'd had a chance to reconcile with her daughter that her punishment was to eternally be pregnant over and again, suffering terrible sickness and pains, only to give birth to infinite stillborn children. It was hilarious.

ya momz

Id say socrates. Continuing to ask, "why u believe wut u do, why do u do wut u do, and why are things the way they are" are probably 3 of the most essential questions u could ever ask (in my opinion.)

ya momz cumz second:mad:

Diogenes. Kant has the strongest influence on my thinking... but Diogenes.

ya momz cumz second:mad:

Most of the time, our mums don't at all, since you're finished so quickly. Have you thought of seeing the doctor about your lack of sexual stamina?

Most of the time, our mums don't at all, since you're finished so quickly. Have you thought of seeing the doctor about your lack of sexual stamina?

nah b. its how its gotta be.

Most of the time, our mums don't at all, since you're finished so quickly. Have you thought of seeing the doctor about your lack of sexual stamina?

Its like you care about the women you have sex with.

What are you, a homo?

Its like you care about the women you have sex with.

What are you, a homo?

In the eyes of many, yes I probably would be considered one :D

I'm at a particular busy stretch in my life, and it's rather hard to find the time to read philosophy when I could be doing something less mentally intensive. But at some point in the near future, I definitely intend on reading some of Murray Bookchin's works, some Lacanian psychoanalysis, and maybe get started on Nietzsche.

My favorites are Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, O K Bouwsma, Nietzsche and Hume, in that order. I like Wittgenstein's later work in particular. I picked up Kierkegaard after Wittgenstein mentioned him several times and found him amazing (and I'm not even christian). Lao Tzu's philosophical Taoism is strikingly similar to Wittgenstein's later works, which is probably why I like it, and has even led to me taking Tai Chi classes...

I have yet to read The Prince (although it's on my bookcase) . Does anyone have an opinion on whether its martial insights are better/worse than the Art of War?

I'm pretty sure The Prince is best understood as satire.



I like Ryle too, because he criticized Descartes, whom I never really liked because his argument seems to go something like:

"I can't trust my senses because they may have been tricked, I can't trust ideas like math because some demon could be tricking me, all I know is that I think, and I cannot doubt that."

"Except God, he totally exists."

"I can't trust my senses because they may have been tricked, I can't trust ideas like math because some demon could be tricking me, all I know is that I think, and I cannot doubt that."

"Except God, he totally exists."
Of course, he uses this to explain how the rest of the world is the way he perceives it, doesn't he?
I'm with you; I've never understood why "Cogito, ergo sum" is such a famous phrase. It's true, I guess, but it's really the only convincing part of the argument. Descartes is one of those people more famous for their method of philosophy than actual beliefs, I think (although he beliefs were probably less inline with the religion of the time than he publicly announced).

Of course, he uses this to explain how the rest of the world is the way he perceives it, doesn't he?
Yeah. Without a benevolent God, Descartes cannot get out of being a paranoid lunatic sitting alone in a corner and scratching his wax.
I'm with you; I've never understood why "Cogito, ergo sum" is such a famous phrase. It's true, I guess, but it's really the only convincing part of the argument. Descartes is one of those people more famous for their method of philosophy than actual beliefs, I think (although he beliefs were probably less inline with the religion of the time than he publicly announced).
"Cogito" isn't even accurate. It is impossible to know, without doubt, that one is thinking; someone else could be feeding words into my head and making me think they are mine. More accurately, you would have to say, "I perceive, therefore I exist."

ths guy:
http://www.freewebs.com/zzzero/bender.gif

Of course, he uses this to explain how the rest of the world is the way he perceives it, doesn't he?
I'm with you; I've never understood why "Cogito, ergo sum" is such a famous phrase. It's true, I guess, but it's really the only convincing part of the argument. Descartes is one of those people more famous for their method of philosophy than actual beliefs, I think (although he beliefs were probably less inline with the religion of the time than he publicly announced).

Well it feels like, he makes a really strong (in my mind) argument, and then out of no where pulls God out of his ass, in a literal Deus ex Machina, and uses it to justify everything else he says.

It just strikes me as odd that Philosophers almost worship at this guy's feet, and half his meditations relies on something that, in all honesty, is less likely to exist, then the whole world isn't. (ie, it's more likely that God doesn't exist, then the world doesn't exist.)

Adam Smith...Noam Chomsky...Karl Marx...Thomas Jefferson...Benjamin Franklin...Winston Churchill...Theodore Roosevelt...

Peirce, Dewey, Frege, Ayer, Quine, Wittgenstein, Feigl, Whitehead to some degree, Heidegger to some degree, Russell, Tarsky, Godel, etc. Basically, most of the Vienna Circle, most of the ironically-named 'Metaphysics Society' and a few others.

That he is a name which I recognize and can't quite place, belying my pose as a thoroughly-educated know-it-all in every subject... Do you recommend him?

I do. He's the only philosopher/sociologist that can make one understand society and anthropology to its fullest without making one pull his or her hair and commit mass murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim

Terry Pratchett.

I am my own favorite philosopher.

Rolf Langenderfer

Terry Pratchett.
oh yeah good one.
I am my own favorite philosopher.

I do so love your modest philosophy.:tongue:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FO1w4WlIXvI

:D

Singer, Humes, Russell, Nietzsche, Diogenes, Camus and Oscar Wilde

I do. He's the only philosopher/sociologist that can make one understand society and anthropology to its fullest without making one pull his or her hair and commit mass murder.

Presumably because there weren't yet a bunch of sociology and anthropology professors teaching him to fill his writing full of jargon?
OK thanks, I'll give him a shot.

Nietzsche. The man pissed everyone off, and half the time wasn't even serious. He was the best real-life troll ever.

Optimus Prime.

howard zinn, gnome chompski, lao tsu, and yes, to the greatest degree any of us are capable of, nature's diversity combined with an honest effort to avoid self deception.

i don't think fallowing any one individual's insights is a logical approach at all.
so the idea of a favorite phylosopher, doesn't really work for me.

i mean, however much understanding any of us might develop, none of us, no one, now, yesterday, nor tomarrow, is infallable, nor entirely encompassing of the greater diversity of natural reality that surrounds us all.

gnome chompski

:tongue:

gnome chompski
Was that intentional? :D

Julian the apostate.

Was that intentional? :D
not entirely. i like him a lot. i just can never remember how to spell worth a dam. and it IS phonetic. or close to it.

he actually, is one of the few people i've heard, whome up to and including the last time i heard him, and it seems to have been a while, i wonder if he's still alive and ok and all, actually seems to make (or have made) some kind of sense.

i don't think fallowing any one individual's insights is a logical approach at all.
so the idea of a favorite phylosopher, doesn't really work for me.

i mean, however much understanding any of us might develop, none of us, no one, now, yesterday, nor tomarrow, is infallable, nor entirely encompassing of the greater diversity of natural reality that surrounds us all.I suppose that depends on if the philosopher you're talking about is a systemizer who likes making grandiose theories. If, on the other hand, the insights we're interested in here are things like "conceptual clarity" and "contextualism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations), it might be a different story.

Nietzsche. The man pissed everyone off, and half the time wasn't even serious. He was the best real-life troll ever.

"ecce homo, chapter 3: why i write such excellent books"

fucking awesome

Terry Pratchett.

You might just be a genius young lassy.

Presumably because there weren't yet a bunch of sociology and anthropology professors teaching him to fill his writing full of jargon?

Might be that. All I know is that his writing helped me understand sociology extremely well and I always reccomend him as a good philosopher and sociologist.

OK thanks, I'll give him a shot.

No problem.

Oh, I have to add one to my previous post, just because I haven't seen him mentioned: Douglas Adams. Another person who was excellent at using humor to point out absurdities in our society.
(Perhaps not traditionally "recognized" as a philosopher, but I don't care.)

"ecce homo, chapter 3: why i write such excellent books"

fucking awesome

Dont forget "Why I am so Wise" and "Why I am so Clever".


He really was fucking win. My favorite was his solution to make the strongest race in Germany, that he also used as an attempt to piss off the Prussian Officer class, the most anti-semetic people in Germany.


They should breed with the Jews, who were the strongest and purest race in Europe.

Win.

best philosopher was Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli
The prince still remains the only philosophical work that make sense in the real world.

Maimonides. It was he who said "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats for a lifetime." Also, you have to respect a man who wrote the Mishnah Torah - a fourteen volume compilation of Jewish law and ethics - in his spare time.

Maimonides. It was he who said "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats for a lifetime." Also, you have to respect a man who wrote the Mishnah Torah - a fourteen volume compilation of Jewish law and ethics - in his spare time.

Ah, the second Moses. I haven't seen that name posted in a looooooong time.

nietzsche

Hmm...

Socrates must be mentioned naturally, due to the whole questioning method (even though it's not 100% perfect since it's based on algorithms)

Kant is a cool dude, and I like his ethics (not 100% sold, but hey). Drier than the antarctic deserts, though.

Thoreau is nice, too, and easy to read, IMO.

Krishnamurti is worth a mention, Hinduism aside. I 'unno, he holds an appeal.

Lao Tsu, the First Libertarian. ;)

Camus - if I was religious, he would be my god. The Happy Side of Existentialism. Fuck Sartre.

Also, Rousseau and Hobbes are cunts that should have been murdered at a young age before they had their chance to spread their statist filth.

Kant is a cool dude, and I like his ethics (not 100% sold, but hey).
Kant's problem is that while conditional imperatives ("Do not lie to people, except those from whom the truth must be hidden in order to preserve the life of another") are fairly justifiable, the categorical imperative ("Do not lie to people ever") is easily invalidated by simple counter-example. Kant refused to allow this sort of conditional rule in his ethical reasoning, which leaves him on fairly shaky ground.

I'm working my way through Hegel at the minute, and so far Philosophy of Right seems like good stuff. But it's hard going. I'm basically tackling the main points, then I intend to go back and work through the footnotes once I've had a read through.

Kant's problem is that while conditional imperatives ("Do not lie to people, except those from whom the truth must be hidden in order to preserve the life of another") are fairly justifiable, the categorical imperative ("Do not lie to people ever") is easily invalidated by simple counter-example. Kant refused to allow this sort of conditional rule in his ethical reasoning, which leaves him on fairly shaky ground.

I'm working my way through Hegel at the minute, and so far Philosophy of Right seems like good stuff. But it's hard going. I'm basically tackling the main points, then I intend to go back and work through the footnotes once I've had a read through.

Hrm....funny enough, I'm reading Kant right now, but then Hegel (after Fichte, I think) for my 20th century philosophy class. Which is, btw, the last philosophy class I ever have to take. This makes me very happy.

Also, Rousseau and Hobbes are cunts that should have been murdered at a young age before they had their chance to spread their statist filth.

Haha! That was funny. What do you think about Hobbes' views on religion though?

Maimonides.

The guy who deliberately made his real work obtuse and exclusive so that only those he thought deserved it could understand it?

He was so much more of a controversial figure back in the day (that is, several hundred years ago) than he is now....

Also, Rousseau... [is a ****] that should have been murdered at a young age before [he] had [his] chance to spread [his] statist filth.

I usually find that people who interpret Rousseau as some kind of evil totalitarian either haven't read him at all or haven't read him very carefully or thoughtfully. (Either that, or they're historians, and care more about the people who were supposedly influenced by him than about what he actually wrote.)

the categorical imperative ("Do not lie to people ever") is easily invalidated by simple counter-example.

You might find its application to a particular situation inconvenient or even counter-intuitive, but it does not follow that such a counter-example "invalidate[s]" it. That's an appeal to consequences fallacy: you have to find a flaw in his original argument for the formulations of the categorical imperative, or in the reasoning he uses to derive the "do not lie" rule. An example where you don't like the results isn't good enough.

Haha! That was funny. What do you think about Hobbes' views on religion though?

To be honest, I'm still not sure what they are. XD It seems to me, though, he has a bit of disdain for it simply because it would interfere with the absolute obedience to the government required by Hobbes. Now, religion + government = bad, but IMO, religion > government. At least religion doesn't punish you for not listening to its inane commands until after you're dead. ;)

To be honest, I'm still not sure what they are. XD It seems to me, though, he has a bit of disdain for it simply because it would interfere with the absolute obedience to the government required by Hobbes. Now, religion + government = bad, but IMO, religion > government. At least religion doesn't punish you for not listening to its inane commands until after you're dead. ;)

I'm glad you don't know. People shouldn't know things like that offhand. Unless they are polisci majors.

His views on religion and government all flow from the same basic idea. Basically - we as humans know nothing. Essentially since all knowledge is gained from our senses we don't even know anything for sure. This computer screen you're staring at - you don't know it exists, since its only your eyes and your fingers (or your tongue, or ears, etc.) telling you that the computer exists. So when it comes to God, an entity that supposedly exists but we can't experience sensually, the question is obviously a dumb one. If we can't know things that we experience every day, how can you possibly justify God?

You understand his reasoning behind the central government (the Leviathan, if you will ;) )? I can explain that too!

Maimonides. It was he who said "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he sits in a boat and drinks beer all day."
Fixed :p
At least religion doesn't punish you for not listening to its inane commands until after you're dead.
I would have to disagree with you there.

I usually find that people who interpret Rousseau as some kind of evil totalitarian either haven't read him at all or haven't read him very carefully or thoughtfully. (Either that, or they're historians, and care more about the people who were supposedly influenced by him than about what he actually wrote.)

I'll admit to falling into the latter category. ;)

But I do recall him placing some sort of unquestionable aura over some "collective will" which is imposed magically accepted by the people. This idea of a "collective will" is something I find to be along the lines of "total horseshit," as I take issue with the idea of some collective will/conscious/rights/etc. I'm too much of an anarchist for that (In the Rothbard sense, not a Bakunin one :P )

But I do recall him placing some sort of unquestionable aura over some "collective will" which is imposed magically accepted by the people.

It is the "collective will" of the people. Remember the beginning of The Social Contract? No political authority can be justified against freedom, because might does not provide right, and no one who wasn't mad would voluntarily relinquish his or her (well, for Rousseau, his) freedom. So political authority must be founded in freedom: the public, collective will that is granted legislative power, so that the people are only bound by the laws they make themselves.

It is the "collective will" of the people. Remember the beginning of The Social Contract? No political authority can be justified against freedom, because might does not provide right, and no one who wasn't mad would voluntarily relinquish his or her (well, for Rousseau, his) freedom. So political authority must be founded in freedom: the public, collective will that is granted legislative power, so that the people are only bound by the laws they make themselves.

True, true. But again, I would argue that only individuals truly think and act, thus the idea of an abstract "collective" is non-existant, and even if it did, it could not be properly determined. Besides, since this theoretical government was the "collective will" of the people, there would be no justification for acting against it, as you would be acting against the will of the people - an almost unquestionable thing. You're effectively giving the government potentially totalitarian powers simply because it's "the collective will."

But you're right, I take issue with Rousseau more for what he inspired than what he wrote specifically.

True, true. But again, I would argue that only individuals truly think and act, thus the idea of an abstract "collective" is non-existant,

You're equivocating. There is no "collective mind." But there is such a thing as collective action, collective politics, and (individuals engaging in) collective thinking, in that they consider what would be right for all people rather than what is in their particular private interest.

Besides, since this theoretical government was the "collective will" of the people, there would be no justification for acting against it, as you would be acting against the will of the people - an almost unquestionable thing. You're effectively giving the government potentially totalitarian powers simply because it's "the collective will."

If the "will of people" is truly "unquestionable", why would you object to its supremacy? If it isn't, what's the problem?

Hmm my favorite western Philosophers are Socrates and St. Thomas Aquinas and I am oddly fond of Lao Tzu so I guess my primarly interest in Philosophy tends toward the moral rather than the political though I did prefer Locke to Marx and Hume when I took an class in Philosophy.

You're equivocating. There is no "collective mind." But there is such a thing as collective action, collective politics, and (individuals engaging in) collective thinking, in that they consider what would be right for all people rather than what is in their particular private interest.

Groups are individiuals cooperating, not single entities. That is the distinction I make. It's one thing for person X, Y, and Z to work together for a shared goal, but the group they form is not a single entity in and of itself.

Also, if so much as one person deviates, it's no longer a truly "collective will of the people." And that one deviation is inevitable - unless you're working in small communes, or a brainwashed, mind-controlled population.

If the "will of people" is truly "unquestionable", why would you object to its supremacy? If it isn't, what's the problem?

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that the supposed ideology and action being coined as the "collective will of the people" becomes unquestionable not in a truly philosophical sense of "this just is," but in a political sense that you are not allowed to. The collective will becomes equivalent to a divine force - equally false and exploitable.

Groups are individiuals cooperating, not single entities. That is the distinction I make. It's one thing for person X, Y, and Z to work together for a shared goal, but the group they form is not a single entity in and of itself.


A collective is defined as a group of individuals who share a common goal, and work together to get that goal.

Further more, Collectives are, as wikipedia points out:
Collectives are also characterised by attempts to share and exercise political and social power and to make decisions on a consensus-driven and egalitarian basis.

Being a consensus driven group means that, no, one person disagreeing with the group isn't disproving that there is no collective will, or such not.

Groups are individiuals cooperating, not single entities. That is the distinction I make. It's one thing for person X, Y, and Z to work together for a shared goal, but the group they form is not a single entity in and of itself.

So?

Also, if so much as one person deviates, it's no longer a truly "collective will of the people."

It's not about everyone agreeing; it's about everyone participating. The price of our capacity to participate in social, collective decisions is being bound to abide by those decisions. Without this notion of collective autonomy, freedom in society, freedom with others, lacks substance: either it is determined by the "might makes right" of every person for himself/herself, or by social rules enforced by some government that simply imposes its will on its subjects without regard for their freedom.

I'm saying that the supposed ideology and action being coined as the "collective will of the people" becomes unquestionable not in a truly philosophical sense of "this just is," but in a political sense that you are not allowed to.

Since when? Democracies actually are much more respectful of freedom of expression than most other types of governments....

You might just be a genius young lassy.

I just like my philosophy practical and psychologically sound. And witty, if I can get it. ;)

Philosophers I like:

Roland Barthes: probably the easiest of structuralist/post-structuralists to understand.

Michel Foucault

Richard Rorty: Contigency, Irony, and Solidarity is fantastic.

John Gray: an interesting but very pessimistic liberal theorist.

Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling is a wonderful exposition on faith.

Nietzsche

Dostoevsky: okay, he wasn't a philosopher per se but his novels are incredibly philosophical.

"Three hundred years before there were any Christians, the philosopher Epicurus founded (306 BCE) a school, or rather college, in a small house and a garden in Athens. ‘The Garden’, as it is called, also published books.

His philosophy taught of an infinite universe of moving particles – the one on which modern science is ultimately based. He taught that the universe evolved naturally – no gods created it, nor do they intervene in it. Life cannot exist after death so there can be no heaven and no hell.

The aim of life is to avoid pain and experience pleasure, so the purpose of this life – the only one we have – must be to make it as happy as possible. And happiness is open to all. It depends upon simple needs easily satisfied, prudence in all things, friendship, kindness, a pain-free body and tranquillity of mind. In all, a philosophy for ancient and modern times.

His outlook spread throughout the Roman world, but after many centuries of influence it was eventually smothered by the dominance of Christianity."

Three words:

Big
Jim
P.

Nuff said.

The aim of life is to avoid pain and experience pleasure, so the purpose of this life – the only one we have – must be to make it as happy as possible. And happiness is open to all. It depends upon simple needs easily satisfied, prudence in all things, friendship, kindness, a pain-free body and tranquillity of mind. In all, a philosophy for ancient and modern times.


I totally and utterly agree with this.

My favourite philosopher?

Kant think of any at the moment. :p

But in all serious I like Marcus Aurelius, and I am surprised that no one else has mentioned him yet.

I am also a fan of Machiavelli, and sort of Plato though I must admit I am only half way through Republic.

How many other people are singing the Monty Python song in the head

"Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable"

No but it is now.

I totally and utterly agree with this.

I don't think anyone has really come up with anything better in the last 2300 years.

I don't think anyone has really come up with anything better in the last 2300 years.

Nah, they've just trying to sell of illegal copies of the concept... usually with a disclaimer along the lines of "This is only valid for US! YOU don't get this."

I totally and utterly agree with this.

I'm not sure I do. Not entirely at least. After all, aren't pain and pleasure at least partially experienced in contrast to each other? Is it not the occasional painful moments that sweeten the pleasurable ones? If we were to never know pain or ever taste defeat, would joy truly be as sweet and intoxicating?

I'm not sure I do. Not entirely at least. After all, aren't pain and pleasure at least partially experienced in contrast to each other? Is it not the occasional painful moments that sweeten the pleasurable ones? If we were to never know pain or ever taste defeat, would joy truly be as sweet and intoxicating?

Aren't you being a bit hopeful in thinking that it is possible to completely eradicate the painful moment? Whatever philosophical ideas you pursue are unlikely to achieve that. Epicurus suffered from kidney stones and lived in a great deal of pain but managed to be happy despite it. It is about maximising happiness of yourself and others, pain is inevitable but don't let it become the focus of your life.

I'm not sure I do. Not entirely at least. After all, aren't pain and pleasure at least partially experienced in contrast to each other? Is it not the occasional painful moments that sweeten the pleasurable ones? If we were to never know pain or ever taste defeat, would joy truly be as sweet and intoxicating?

That may be so, but there are very few people who would actively strive for pain (masochists I believe is what they're called), humans do crave pleasure.
Life is such that no human ever will only have pleasure and no pain, but we constantly try and tip the balance in favour of pleasure.

In a sublime irony, excessive pleasure turns itself into pain for us... if all you ever do is win, you will try and put yourself in situations where you cannot win, because winning itself becomes intolerable to you.

Anyone who is drunk.

Fair enough. I see we're pretty much agreeing fundamentally then.

My favourite philosopher?

Kant think of any at the moment. :p

But in all serious I like Marcus Aurelius, and I am surprised that no one else has mentioned him yet.

I am also a fan of Machiavelli, and sort of Plato though I must admit I am only half way through Republic.

Marcus Aurelius? Stotic wasn't he? I've wanted to read his work but haven't found an copy as of yet.

Marcus Aurelius? Stotic wasn't he? I've wanted to read his work but haven't found an copy as of yet.

Yes that is correct Stoic philosophy.

I am sure any good book stores would have a copy of Meditations somewhere. Look in the Classical section of the bookstore.

Marcus Aurelius? Stotic wasn't he? I've wanted to read his work but haven't found an copy as of yet.
Stotic? Isn't that the one where the highest good in life is to acquire shiny things and eat the brains of people who are bigger than you?

Stotic? Isn't that the one where the highest good in life is to acquire shiny things and eat the brains of people who are bigger than you?

Heh, didn't actually pick up on that spelling error.

Heh, didn't actually pick up on that spelling error.
What can I say, I like weasels. And making fun of Ancient philosophers.

I'll go against the grain here an mention a few concerned with the philosophy of logic.

Alfred Tarski
Willard Van Orman Quine
Richard Montague