Vote for your favourite philosopher!

[Theunderground]

Hume is now 'the man'.

[rajeevrnair]

Frederich Nietsczhe has not been included...wonder why?

[Theunderground]

Though i have a current interest in Hume,Freddy is without doubt the tops...

[chrissponias]

There is a lot you ignore about Plato. He was a brilliant philosopher.

[EricW]

My vote.

[Stonebolt]

No Eckhart Tolle in the poll?

[Ubercritter]

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.

[maraki16]

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...

[lieasleep]

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

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

[Dialectic]

I'm going to have to write in Hannah Arendt.

[G L Wilson]

Sartre and Russell were pretty hard to pick between. I went with Sartre in the end.

[lieasleep]

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.

(not that this post was facetious, in regards to other things we have discussed relating to your choice here)

[G L Wilson]

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.

(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.

[muazjalil]

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

[Dark Muse]

Frederich Nietsczhe has not been included...wonder why?

Yes!

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.