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.Originally Posted by Turk
Plato
Descartes
Kant
Sartre
Russell
Never met any of them!....
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.
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
Last edited by Midas; 10-13-2007 at 10:48 AM.
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'...
Where's Mary Wollstonecraft? Also, you've got Sartre, but not Simone de Beauvoir?
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
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.
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 ?
活在当下
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
