Printable View
Just not realistic for one person to know all of them. And even they are philosophers, they were talking about different stuff. They are all dead right now, and we need a good philosophical view of current situation in the world. No one is ever going to be able to read everything from every single known philosopher. How can you pick and choose from limited offer? And is it really possible to put them down, one by one? And by whose criteria?
Hurray for Kant! He's my hero of thought. He saved us all from that nasty David Hume, and reestablished the possibility of causality with a little thing we like to call synthetic a priori judgments, or non-experiential judgments of amplification. Wasn't that a nice thing for him to do?
I suppose it's not realistic for one person to know every philosopher ever, but there certainly are some major ones, and for a student of philosophy it should not be too much to expect to know a great deal about a great many of them. In any case, many philosophers that we study have been dealing with a very few fundamental questions about the nature of things and what ought to be, so once you know what the questions are, it's not a big step to finding out what each philosopher contributed to the discussion. As for a philosophical view of the current situation, I think we can easily dust of a number of philosophical views of past situations to apply. Do you really think that human nature has changed so drastically that the past cannot possibly answer for us now?Quote:
Originally Posted by XY&Z
Anyway, yes, Kant is the man. He essentially established a philosophical basis for Faith (not as the merely religious concept, but as the functional basis of existence and knowledge.)
Haha you are awesome Hyperborean.
I think Descartes my favourite.
I meant their work, not them personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste
Do you really think that one student from New York and one from Madrid have same curriculum? And what do you and what can you know about one philosopher? The way he likes to take his tea in the afternoon? It’s not really important to know about them (and how much we can rely on such information) but more about their work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste
Do you ever feel that their thoughts are repeating? You know; Great Minds Think Alike ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste
Unfortunately I’ve lost fate in human kind. So much evil in such civilized world. What a shame. Maybe we could seek answer in old books using old intelligence but who would listen? Even global warming is not considered seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste
I goggled essential thinkers and result shows book where 100 of them are listed. Why 100? Simply because you cannot take just 5 or 6 of them for such a long period of time as is human existence.
I, too, am very fond of Russell! I felt sorry when I read that, after years of working on a book about mathematics with Whitehead, Goedel came along and made the whole thing moot. But Russell was good enough to admit when he was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
So much evil..do you know that Walt Whitman thought that civilization was the cause of evil? That man left alone should be natural and good, but civilization corrupts him?Quote:
Originally Posted by XY&Z
Lots of evil, true, but who knows exactly how much? Let's just hope it gets better.
One reason I love Descartes so much is just the way he writes. I mean, even look at just the first sentence of his meditations on philosophy - it's so honest! I love it, and for me it illustrates the connection between literature and philosophy. Philosophy is nothing if it is not great literature. So much of it is rhetoric, and even poetry, I think it does better to acknowledge the connection, and consider it a good thing. Philosophy is good if it is beautiful phrases, beautiful paragraphs, and ones that have connected arguments, and can keep it interesting, etc. etc. It is the reason I consider Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche philosophers.
We are our own best Philosopher :)
I agree!! My vote would have to be for Aristotle..Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Honestly, I didn’t know that was his theory. But I find it valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
I just love his Song
(http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/logr/log_026.html)
Amen. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Man is gifted with reason; he is life being aware of itself.
Erich Fromm
Maybe there is a key. Intelligence and civilization are recipes for final disaster of the world known to us. We are not first or least, but can we make a difference? Just because we know.
If you all are going to vote your favorite philosopher, then you must add more of them to your list or create a "write me in" option. quasimodo1
Without exception, my favourite is one that is not particularly recognised as a philosopher, yet his down to earth philosophy, and profound understanding of life, and human nature, oozes from almost every line of his prolific writings.
He entertains while he teaches.
His name: William Shakesepeare.
1-Pascal he was a mistic who experience thoughts on its most meaningful way.He can express beautifully talking about maths, Gods nature, human signs and philosophical questions.Lonely and forgotten , died in misery.
2-Spinoza is another one wich live and writing can be very interisting.He wondered about human nature, proposites, relation to a God creator...find unity at plurallity.¨He is enjoyable to read.
3-Nietszche is great for his style.He dares to say everything to be offending and unreasonable honest.He contructs a phylosophy as an act of creationAs an artist.I think he was an Artist and a rebel.Misunderstood and judged as many few..will always capture attention from curious minds.
4-Wittgenstein.He was tremendous logical and analithical author who has turned almost mistical at the end.Modest, corageous,mind gifted...he aported to Analythic Philosophy to Logic, to Semiotic and to Metaphisych.He was at the front(War) .He moved to Ireland and die at 40 something of Cancer.
5-Marx.I am sorry!it is not a polithical thing.Only that he has made the most tremendous analysis of the material and social history af the world.Even his detractors give him the reason...I mean capitalists give him the reason(plusvally, human allienation, explotation, social structures,ideology ,class hate)and even the countries who aware from class worker revolution did it through the atention of that class requirements(Give the working men nice houses and salaries who aloud them taking a holiday and a nice car and will through away revolutionary ideas)The English handled it very well...the the post industrial societies keep giving marx the reason.THE PREDOMINANT IDEOLOGY IT IS THE DOMINANT CLASS IDEOLOGY....tell me is not true!
I am talking about his analisis of the material history.I do not agree with his atheism or his proletary dictature.:idea:
Why isn't Nietzsche there? :bawling:
I say it's not true. His concept of material history is nonsense. No historian today worth anything believes that history evolves according to laws. History is events, not forces. Marx was wrong about economics, wrong about history, and people still follow him as if he's some god. It's a religion based on faith, rediculoous faith at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludmila607
I would have to put Marx right up there too. Even though Communism seems to be dead and his ideal state was never realized his critique of capatalism was right on the money. Capatalism is not the savior of the world any more than democracy (Plato said that the natural end of any democracy was despotism). With the earth heading toward ecological disaster and companies being given free reign to operate at will it would do us some good to go back to Marx and examine the beginnings and ends capatalist societies.