I haven't actually read any of his work, but do you mean that betrand russel created analytical philosophy?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Printable View
I haven't actually read any of his work, but do you mean that betrand russel created analytical philosophy?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Of the ones listed, I have to say my favourite is Sartre.
I absolutely adore his ideas, AND I have a soft spot for existentialism...
"It's absurd that we're born. It's absurd that we die." - How can you NOT love him?
As for Plato, no offense to anybody, but I'll quote Nietzsche:
"Plato was a bore."
:D
i realize the contribution Plato has made to philosophy. alfred whitehead said that all of western philosophy is a footnote to plato. yet i think the philosopher that turned the whole field on its head would have to be Immanuel Kant. had it not been for Kant we might have missed out on those who reacted especially to his Critique of Pure Reason, such as Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, all make reference to him.
if you read Plato's Laws, you might change your mind about his pessimism for democracy that is mostly the case in his early work. The Laws is his last work and represents a huge departure from the rigid logic, though still idealistic at heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
I agree Jon. I wish though that I could really understand Kant. He baffles me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
i agree with you, i'm still trying to figure him out.
word of advice: never drink while reading kant, you're bound to go blind. :lol:
a wise man once told me, read a difficult book once, give it a second chance. read it a second time and still don't get it, buy yourself a good interpretation. :D
Um... the democracy Plato was talking about is totally different from what we call democracy today. Democracy literally means, to be ruled by the mob. It's apparent that that isn't true today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
Please.read Pascal , Nietszche, Spinoza and Leibniz.
They were reaching the pint really.
Not that boring Kant cathegorization.
Not that solid Hume empirism.
No that Locke good sense.
Read the Greeks and read the Renacence Phylosophers.They approaches to something real.As real as unity in plurality.Many of them were cuantic before Einstein.
They go by the pats of Math, methaphisichs and Geometric moved to truth.
I haven't read every post, but I did most of them. So, if my points here have been made by another (one I have missed) then, it will merely strengthen the point of view taken, in that it is one shared by more than one, whether it is accepted as valid by the originator, or not.
First, I feel it is misleading to ask - 'vote for your favourite philosopher', and then provide a list from which to chose. To chose any would be stating that that person was your favourite philosopher. Which, if one's favourite was not on the list would be incorrect.
To avoid this, it should have been put as - which of the following philosophers do you prefer (or words to that effect).
Second, philosophy covers a vast subject area which I feel is demanding too much of anyone to provide all the answers, or thought provoking ideas that reach into every area. Therefore, I feel we should always maintain an open mind, and a liberal one, which means that we need more than one to help us
to satisfy our quest for wisdom of life.
The human mind is fickle and highly sensitive to mood, besides many other
influences. Therefore to ask of it 'what is your favourite composer, or writer,
can evoke a quick yes or no type answer if pressed, but if one is seeking a response that is meaningful, it is a question that should not be asked.
For example, I have many classical books on my shelves from Wind in the Willows, to a collection of Shakespeare's Comedies (with a broad expanse in between, and beyond. I have CD's of the 50's popular music and Tchaichovski's 6th, It is the same with my DVD collection. I read, I listen, and I watch a number of them many times over. It depends what mood I am in, each serves to stimulate that mood at that particular time.
As a result, I could well be influenced in my reply by my mood at the time. I am not a 'moody' person in it's literal meaning, but, like most, I have, and cherish my differing moods like I love my change of seasons.
Having covered that 'brief' introduction (smile), intended to explain if not excuse my deviation from the thread promoter's words of guidance - the 'philosopher' that I feel satisfies most of my 'mood' patterns is one that is not really classed among the more accepted and illustrious names - William Shakespeare. Every page of his prolific works be it comedy or tragedy just oozes a deep understanding of life gleaned from an experience that appears
has reached from the high, into its very depths.
The most extreme emotion, true love, which some consider above that term, and which has been, and is, at the root of our greatest concerns, and experiences that continually shape our lives from birth to death, I feel is defined by Shakespeare at its most definitive in his sonnet # 116
Until we get a solid understanding of what love is, and what it is not. much else in life is of little relevance. Love is where the wisdom of life starts, and ends. He leaves no grey areas.
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
William Shakespeare
Great post!
Thereby,the results had shown explicitly that Plato is the optimal philosopher.Many apologies,I didn't even heard of them,sigh...I am melancholy,but I shall research on them when I am unoccupied in the metropolis.
i'd put thoreau way up there. Nietzche should've been on the list.
Until I studied his work futher i loved the idea of Sartre's freedom and i still do as i think it has the least problems and enjoyed learning about his philosophy (plus i passed the exam!)
Friedrich wilhelm Nietzsche.
'The only philosopher who i had anything to learn from'...:D
Where's Mary Wollstonecraft? Also, you've got Sartre, but not Simone de Beauvoir?
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche...
i voted for sartre absolutely
Bertrand Russell.
The man had a sense of humor and could dismantle the follies of contemporary society without breaking a sweat. Instead of creating a grand system of thought to explain human nature and then trying to shoehorn humans into it, the way philosophers tend to do, Russell was merely an observer who reflected about what he saw. When I read him, I always get the impression I'm reading a man who really understands the average man's thoughts and behaviours. His men are real and not intellectual abstractions designed to prove the philosopher's system.
I know, right? arguably the second best philosopher ever, right before Plato and right after Kant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are my favorite
Max is my favorite because i love regular patterns he had found . How useful they are ! Could you tell me what is meaning of the first one in Chinese ?Quote:
Originally Posted by yuka
Hume is now 'the man'.
Frederich Nietsczhe has not been included...wonder why?
Though i have a current interest in Hume,Freddy is without doubt the tops...
There is a lot you ignore about Plato. He was a brilliant philosopher.
My vote.
No Eckhart Tolle in the poll?
This poll is a little limited. But out of the few options given I choose Sartre, simply because he managed to play with a concept of nothingness that actually makes sense.
I have never been a big fan of Plato because his philosophy/politics is, at its base, a type of religious conservatism.
Kant never did solve a lot of the stuff he set out to solve, he just made them more difficult for other people to grapple with. his writing is inaccessible.
Russell was not consistent enough, from work to work, for me. Though he has done and said some interesting things.
Descartes cut Man in two, and now we don't know how to put him back together again. Closest we have gotten I think is Dennet.
my favourite is plato. i had studied him extensively for a year at high school. i really liked his theory of ideas, and i think that his theories and his way of thinking really set the pillars for western philosophy. it is true that his theory about politics is really elitistic, and he views democracy in a different sense, but what i like about him is that he really justifir=es and puts an accurate framework for what he suggests. one moe thing i like about plato, is that his theories blend with literature and poetry. i find it really interesting that he uses so many allegories, similes, metaphors etc. i think that beginning from ancient greek philosophy (and there were many philosophers, other better and other worse, who did not contribute a lot to the shaping of this science) will give everyone a great basis, in order to be able to understand modern philosophy, especially sine many more modern philosophers used the theories of the ancients. this science, like every other, should be studied progressively, moving from an era to another, from the simpler to the more complex. and i think everyone can understand plato more or less, at least most of his main points. and i love his narratives and how he gave a setting and supposed protagonists to present his theories...
see i am not sure i agree with you about that whole relevance of love thing. and i don't think sartre would either, which is why i picked him :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas
I'm going to have to write in Hannah Arendt.
Sartre and Russell were pretty hard to pick between. I went with Sartre in the end.
Are you a teacher, G L? I am only asking because I, admittedly, always ask myself whether or not you are being facetious when we talk which is a very teacherly thing to do. Don't mean to get personal, just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
(not that this post was facetious, in regards to other things we have discussed relating to your choice here)
I reckon Sartre was a man not to teach us anything, and I reckon the same about myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by lieasleep
Russell just got 10, that is just Sad :-( ! Russell is the one who got me in to philosophy; epitome of lucidity and clarity of thought; no verbiage, absolute precision and his humor/sarcasm simply breathtaking
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by rajeevrnair
That is who I wanted to vote for.
Of the ones on the list I am really torn between
Descartes and Satre but I think Satre has the slight edge and will win my vote.
I would vote for myself, actually, if I had a chance.
Male:By a million miles shakespeare.
Female:ISIS,then Nel Noddings.
Schopenhauer
Kant has enabled me to present some kind of argument to my athiest friends. His allusion to the eye as being not aware of itself without a brain... Infinately applicable towards the ultimate realization of some unknowable self. Like him and Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer is an atheist. Your friends should present his argument to you.