Philosophers simplified

001- Voltaire
1694-1778
Born at a time when the authorities: Church and State were seriously questioned regarding their authoratative manner of prescribing how people should conduct their lives. Voltaire took up the cudgel to state that certainty is absurd, as nearly everything accepted as factual has been revised at some point in time, and as such are at best a working hypothesis for the present.

A well known writer even in his day, embroiled in several scandalous affairs, and once even exiled from France. He saw no means of ever reaching more than fleeting agreement regarding anything, proposing that some system needed to be found in order to determine what can be reasonably accepted as truth. Regarding his death bed the approcipal story is told that he was asked to repent before it is to late, and that his last words were: 'Now is not the time to make new enemies.'

002- John Dewey
1859-1952
Being a pragmatist he was not so much interested in the intricasies of philosophy, but rather in the practical applications of same in order to make sense of everyday life. He saw man as a creature who is obliged to constantly respond to an ever changing world. And the manner of our response is where Dewey really gets interesting!

We go about it in one of two ways: the first of which boils down to religion (ethics) and may include rites, magic, sacrifices, etc ( the unknown). Long ago mankind's only response to natural and man-made disasters were to invoke the goodwill of the "gods." The other way, of course, being "science".... garnering knowledge in order to comprehend and control the inner workings of that which influence our survival. But often these two methods are in conflict within the human pshyce, and ideally philosophy should be the means of reconciliation between these two approaches.

003- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
(1899-1951)
"At a loss for words" is perhaps the best way to declare the sum total of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philossophicus (which I profess to not wholly comprehend) in which he sets out to indicate the limits of language, and by implication the impediments it imposes on man's ability to clearly communicate his thoughts and intents. These impediments (according to Wittgenstein) for example, render it impossible to meaningfully discuss ethics and religion, as language is simply not structured towards such "abstract" concepts. He firmly held in his Tractatus that language solely consists of propositions, but later on became one of his own, most voceferous critics.

The practical implications of Wittgensteins philosophy for us resides there-in that it perhaps justifies poetry as a necessity. Because everyday, "formal" language is simply inadequate when it comes to clearly construe emotions like love, hate, longing, desires, etc.

I thought that mainly Dewey was interested in the area of education, promoting a "practical" method of teaching. "Children learn by doing," was his central mantra-- assigning individual and group projects by which students can arrive at answers and conclusions through their own experience. Dewey maintained that this hands-on approach was much more effective than lectures or learning by rote.

In recent decades with the abysmal state of public education in the U.S. in particular, Dewey and his adherents have often been under attack. In my increasingly humble opinion, I believe that part of the problem is that Dewey's principles haven't really ever been fully adopted or put into practice. It's akin to what G.K. Chesterton said about Christianity: "It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and never been tried."


I confess that I've never read Wittgenstein, though I've certainly heard of him. Your description of his basic point about abstractions underscores precisely why we should strive to avoid using them in poetry and express ourselves in concrete terms instead. "No ideas except in things, " wrote William Carlos Williams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

I confess that I've never read Wittgenstein, though I've certainly heard of him. Your description of his basic point about abstractions underscores precisely why we should strive to avoid using them in poetry and express ourselves in concrete terms instead. "No ideas except in things, " wrote William Carlos Williams.

---

Wouldn't that make for a very depressing, sanitised and cold world?

004- Albert Camus
1913-1960
An Algerian by birth Camus was so much more than a philosopher. A prolific writer of plays and novels, he was awarded the Nobel prize for literature in 1957. Living a full life it thus is interesting that at the base of his philosophy was the perception that life is inherently meaningless, any meaning there-of existing only as a creation of man. In all likelihood it was his fascination with the legend of Sysiphius that set the rock rolling ( a man endlessly rolling a rock uphill) imbueing his consciousness with thoughts of futility.

Born in extreme poverty he none the less lived a full life, studying philosophy at university, emigrating to France (later being deported) where he joined the Communist party, joined the French resistance, (it was world war 2) edited an underground newspaper, and wrote several novels. Some of the better known are: The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), and The Stranger (1942). Life is a contradiction our Albert declared, dying at age 46 in a car accident.

005- Jean-Paul Sartre.
1905 - 1980
His philosophy can be defined by his own words: "First of all man exists, then appears on the scene, and only afterwards defines himself." Being an atheist he denied the existence of a God creating all men equal. No, For Sartre every human being created for him or her self whatever he or she eventually became.

Unlike his famous paper-knife analogy regarding which the maker has a pre-ordained idea, an exact intent of what said knife's quality and use must be BEFORE manufacturing same ( the essence of said knife preceding its existence ), human beings ( in contrast ) first exist, then define their own essence. Accordingly someone is born, decides he/she wants to be a writer, and only then sets out to realise the essence of same. Sartre declares that we are condemned to be free, and thus must be considerate of the influence our decisions have on others.

006- Jacques Derrida
1930-2004
If summed up in a single sentence Derrida's philosophy might perhaps be stated as: The written text is never complete. For in saying whatever we do there are certain subtleties that influence the what and the manner in which we are saying. These can include our personal circumstances, even ethical and historical ones which we might not be aware of. Yet it influences what we say (write) at a specific time, as well as what we do not say (write), and what additional information we might declare at a later stage, as well as how that later information might impede on what went before. Thus it is impossible to perceive whatever we read as the totality regarding any specific subject, as the intent will forever be influenced by what comes next.

For example: we can read a book about a guy called John: the further our reading progress the more our perception of John changes. And if there is a sequel our previous perception regarding John might completely change. Thus, according to Derrida, we must always (to put it simple) read between the lines. Perhaps validating the socratic opinion that writing is only "the appearance of wisdom."

Aunt, and Michael , you two have me thinking now ( "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." the bard has stated!)..... Was it not Karl Popper ( a dead philosopher of not so long ago ) who has stated that to be completely objective is an impossibility? That said I want to side with Michael: Try to state the "facts" contained in following little poem by Tennyson in "concrete" terms:
THE EAGLE

He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ring'd with the azure world, he stands.


The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.

Not the same, is it? Perhaps like saying who needs to ever see a painting? Why not just describe what's it about? Close the galleries, read all about it.

Are you related to Theophilus P Wildebeest?

No :)

007- Simone de Beauvoir
1908-1986
Simone's main issue was with the manner in which women were perceived to differ from men. She points out that throughout history our perception from whatever viewpoint, including that of philosophy firstly was from the male viewpoint. And that women were deemed to be equal to men only inasmuch like men they were. She points out that up to now women were only accepted as equal if they could manually be a men's equal regarding the performance of manual labour.

To put it shortly, Simone was of the opinion the a woman is not born as such, but becomes such. Women, she states must forget about being like men, as well as refuse the passiveness which society attempts to imbue them with. She had a life-long relationship with Sartre, and her "The Second Sex" was banned by the Vatican.

In 1980 Julia Kristeva undid many of the male/female perceptions espoused by Simone who died at age 78.

008- Noam Chomsky
1928- present
Chomsky originally concerned himself with linguistics, later swithching to the intricasies of political power: American politics specifically. Intrigued by the difference in what governments say they do, and what they actually do do lead him to his stating his "principle of universatility." In short it declares that we need to be ethically responsible: judging ourselves according to the same norms, the same morals we apply when judging others. And in the same manner we should judge our governent, not necessarily taking what they say at face value.

This principle of universatility, according to Chomsky, is an issue of morality, for without adhering to it one's pronouncements are so many empty words. In 1968 he published his "American Power and the new Mandarins." In 1967 there was his "The Responsibilities of Intellectuals" a direct outcome of his opposition to the Vietnam war. In 2001 his "9-11" saw the light, and in 2006 "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

Still, philosophy can bake no bread. So here is something regarding myself while I continue to summarize more philosophers. Hoping of course that some of you will follow suit: telling us something about your philosophy.

Oscar Wildebeest
?-present
"The extent of one's happiness depends on the degree to which you perceive yourself as being solely in control of your own destiny."

Closely identifying with man's day to day struggle he became more and more of a recluse, disaknowledging television and newspapers as it brings him into too close contact with life's realities. He reads vociferously, finding it difficult to interact with others on a daily basis. Yet loving the human race, finding man's perception of being in control of his own life a fallacy. However, it does not prevent him from contemplating regarding what exactly the root cause of happiness is.

The perception of being completely in control of your own life, he decided. However, it could never be more than a perception, as there simply are too many imponderables. Thus, in order to (which is everyone's duty) create this sense of wellbeing we need to act in a compassionate way, unflinchingly behaving towards others in such a manner as to not cause despair regarding themselves.

009- Friedrich Nietzsche
1844-1900
He was best summed up by Freud, who declared: "The degree of introspection achieved by Nietzsche had never been achieved by anyone." For what other man would dare to declare that God is dead? He was seriously concerned with the Platonic principle of splitting the world into two "entities": a real world which can be attained by the intellect, and a world of appearances that is accessible by the senses. Nietzsche sees a correlation between this and the Christian concept of life on earth, with an afterlife in heaven. Thus stating that God is dead he means that the validity of these perceptions are dead, rather. And it is important to keep in mind that he made no distinction between two different worlds in any instance.

But Nietzsche was more than a philosopher- he also wrote poetry, was a philologist, and a composer, forming a firm friendship with Wagner. Said friendship which he terminated because of the latter's anti-semitism. In 1889 he collapsed while attempting to prevent a horse being whipped. This incident perhaps the most graphic monument to the compassion he harboured for all living things.