Vote for your favourite philosopher!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demian

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.

---

Can I ask how old you are, Demain? You seem quite young. Just because something is associated with a philosopher ("Plato said that the natural end of any democracy was despotism") doesn't make it correct. Plato was wrong. Just like Marx was wrong. And by the way, the most environmentally damaging societies have been communists. Communism doesn't "seem" to be dead. It is dead, thank God.

Philosophers seem to be a fashion although many deserve better. This list above is incomplete, necessarily. My latest "philosopher" of great interest is G. Spencer Brown in his amazingly mystical treatise, "Laws of Form". Brown also was a pre-eminent mathmatician.

Good point Quasi about contempoary philosophers. Everyone else has mentioned outdated philosophers, and frankly philosophy is linked to a time and place. Who really considers Plato's shadows of reality to have any real significance today. I am not familiar with G. Spencer Brown, but he seemed quite interesting when I just looked him up. Along the same lines, the important phiolosphers of our day are Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. They understand today's life and what philosophy means to it.

To Virgil: I capitalize Philosophers because anyone with the verve and confidence to take on this task deserves respect on many levels. Now I have to research the two you mentioned. I learned about G. Spencer Brown from the "Autobiography of Allan Watts". (Interestingly it seems Watts died from on overdose, or the effects thereof, of LSD25). That's stuff's not for everybody, expecially considering it can change your DNA. I'll check out your two Philosophers and comment later. Can philosophy be dated, can it be obsolete? I think yes, since if it espouses a modus vivendi, and our present condition as humans changes radically in time. quasi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Can I ask how old you are, Demain? You seem quite young. Just because something is associated with a philosopher ("Plato said that the natural end of any democracy was despotism") doesn't make it correct. Plato was wrong. Just like Marx was wrong. And by the way, the most environmentally damaging societies have been communists. Communism doesn't "seem" to be dead. It is dead, thank God.

---

There is one example of this from our century and that is when Hitler was elected as Chancellor of Germany. The Athenians enjoyed a full (not representative) democracy for a little more time than the United States has had a go at it.
I would have said communism was dead also, save for China. But in economic terms we may not be able to classify China as a real communist society any longer. Russia may reject capatalism at any time. Who knows what's around the bend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

---

The marx history analisis is not capricious.He takes the Hegel Dialectic heories wich consider that Human society changes on dialectic way.So Tesis Untitesis and Sintesis...could be not wrong if you consider the precivilizated world, the medieval world, the modern industrial and postindustrial world?Will you deny that there always be peolple commanding power based on material resources(such as lands, weapons, Knowledge...)Will you deny that there always have been people oppressed starving lied and week?Will you deny that religion was used as opium for the mass pain and tireness??
And will you deny our lives at the hands of people who owns once again power, material resources and Knowledge?
Will you deny that their money comes from Plusvally and explotation?
Will you deny that the only reason for waht there is not a global revolution is mass idiotization, religious lies and fear???
Deny it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demian

There is one example of this from our century and that is when Hitler was elected as Chancellor of Germany.

---

Oh come on, one occurence hardly makes a trend. And besides, he may have been elected, but he did not step down or stand for further elections. He held power by dictatorial force.

Quote:

---

The Athenians enjoyed a full (not representative) democracy for a little more time than the United States has had a go at it.

---

Are you predicting that the US will not be a democracy (actually it's a Republic, which is significantly different than the Athenians) in the near future? That's putting yourself on a limb. What form of government would you prefer? Aristocracy? I would think then you would prefer to be king. Or do you mind being a peasant. Or would you prefer a dictatorship? Then we can all salute you, or would you prefer to be chief of the secret police?

Quote:

---

I would have said communism was dead also, save for China. But in economic terms we may not be able to classify China as a real communist society any longer. Russia may reject capatalism at any time. Who knows what's around the bend?

---

Communism is dead. DEAD. Face it. China is not communist, nor will Russia ever be again. No economist will ever convince any leader that communism provides for a better life. No mass of people will ever believe it will improve their lives. DEAD. As Ronald Reagan predicted, it's in "the ash heap of history."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Oh come on, one occurence hardly makes a trend. And besides, he may have been elected, but he did not step down or stand for further elections. He held power by dictatorial force.

---

That is what a despot does.

Of the ones on the list, Sartre. Subjective experience 4tw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Plato is old, pessimistic about democracy and viewed Sparta as quite a model society. We don't support his ideas too.
Descartes is interesting, at least to a mathematician. However, We don't like extreme rationalism.
Kant- urghhhh. Essential german philosophy. German is a language of heavy words. We're a bit afraid of Kant.
We don't know almost anything at all about Russell, sadly.
And for Sartre - haven't read him, but on some real-life matters he misunderstood some stuff very hardly - no repressions in Soviet Union for they are impossible in a socialist state, our donkey. We prefer Camus to him.
So yes, we have eliminated all of them.
However, where are pre-Socratics? Socrates? Aristotle? Spinoza? Locke? Hume? Berkeley? Kierkegaard? Camus? Freud? Wittgenstein? There are more options you can enter, you know so why so few of them?

---

:thumbs_up

Although I have to remove Russell from the "pointless navel-gazer" list that all the others are on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bii

Taliesin - you need to read Russell. He is a most excellent philosopher.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

So what if he's pessimistic about democracy. Today it's clear democracy is not good.

---

Please. May I suggest that you actually spend some time studying the world that you live in?

We can't discuss this here, but it's a ridiculously provocative [and completely incorrect] statement.

I'll be happy to explain to you by PM why it such a fallacy, but please do try to be a little more considered with your blanket statements. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

I also think this is very little list for vote. I also don't think Russell is a philosopher in a way, although he wrote books about philosophical subjects.

---

Yes, that, in fact, is what makes him a philosopher. Just as Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams are philosophers.*

Studying "Philosophy", as a subject does not make one a philosopher - writing widely-read books on life, the universe and everything does; the brush is very broad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unbeliever

I, too, am very fond of Russell!

---

How could you not be? Marvellous, and magnificently flawed man. Of the five in the poll, he's the only one that wild horses could drag a vote out of me for.

Anyone who's read many of my posts will realise that I'd gladly make a large bonfire out of the books of almost all the others mentioned so far.

Bertrand Russell made the most-relevant point ever in philosophy when he asked people to question all philosophies. Using that principle, reading "classical" philosophy has the use of enabling early removal of biases in thinking, but that's about all. Failure to apply critical analysis is likely to lead to serious cases of uniophthalmagia.



*May interest some:

As an atheist, I find that I agree with lots of Richard Dawkins, but I also disagree strongly with some of his thinking.

Rowan Williams, as Archbishop and leader of one of the pargest christian churches, is a person many people would think I have little in common with.

The reality is that I rate Rowan Williams' philosophies far higher than Richard Dawkins'. [obviously, theistic bits aside :D ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Bertrand Russell made the most-relevant point ever in philosophy when he asked people to question all philosophies.

---

I haven't actually read any of his work, but do you mean that betrand russel created analytical philosophy?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Plato is old, pessimistic about democracy and viewed Sparta as quite a model society. We don't support his ideas too.
Descartes is interesting, at least to a mathematician. However, We don't like extreme rationalism.

---

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 jon1jt

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.

---

I agree Jon. I wish though that I could really understand Kant. He baffles me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I agree Jon. I wish though that I could really understand Kant. He baffles me.

---

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