Favourite Philosophers and why...

[jonathan7]

Howdies all,

 

This thread is exactly what it says in the title ...

 

For me;

 

1. Friedrich Nietzsche - I first ran into the German age 17, I was then, and am still now a massive fan of his work, Nietzsche at least to me, is wonderfully brutal with his logic, and is a wonderfully original thinker, who's influence I think is wider than people may realise, I have no doubt, that he had a massive impact on much of Freud's work, and in some senses could be considered a 'proto' psychologist (though I think most philosophers, tend to understand the human psyche rather well. I think Nietzsche has suffered from bad translations and being wrong attributed to Nazism - which is for anyone properly familiar with his works, I think silly.

 

Some favourite quotes...

 

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." - The Dawn

 

“At every step one has to wrestle for truth; one has to surrender for it almost everything to which the heart, to which our love, our trust in life, cling otherwise. That requires greatness of soul: the service of truth is the hardest service. What does it mean, after all, to have integrity in matters of the spirit? That one is severe against one's heart...that one makes of every Yes and No a matter of conscience.” - The Antichrist

 

And I think perhaps his most famous Quote...

 

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

 

I could could happily quote all day, however I shall stop there

 

2. Voltaire - he wasn't the most original thinker of all the Philosophers out there, but I think as a human being, he was probably top of the lot, an enlightenment thinker. He stood up against both the Catholic Church and the French Government, for the little men during the Terror (perhaps France's Darkest days). A wonderful man in my book, though of course had his faults.

 

Often wrongly attributed to him is this quote; "I disagree with what you have to say but defend to the death your right to say it" - that would more be a summing up of Voltaire's thoughts on freedom of speech, it actually origination in the 19th Century, in a book reviewing him, what he actually said was;

 

Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770

 

Voltaire, is a wonderfully witty writer, and I would highly recommend any of his works, due to the witty, knowledgeable way in which they are all done.

 

3. Bertrand Russell - as a man, he had his dark side, which some have tried to use to discredit some of his works, I think however this sets him up as a straw man - after all do you think the Jumbo jet is wrong because it was first conceived in Nazi Germany? Russell also did a great deal in campaigning for good causes, and as such, like most, was a contradiction, between his light and dark side. The greatest, I think of Russell, is that much of what he did still impacts philosophy, and the History of Western Philosophy is perhaps my favourite Philosophy work. The Problems of Philosophy also, I think remains the seminal work for introducing Philosophy students to their subject. He was of course a mathematician as well - and perhaps this comes across in the very logical way he goes about nearly all his work.

 

Favourite Qutes;

 

“The fundamental difference between the liberal and illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action.” - 'Why I'm not a Christian'

 

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” - Marriage and Morals

 

-- I would prefer it, if those posting in thread, have read the books from which the Quotes come from, rather than using Quote sites from the internet - the now generation I think sadly bring poverty to literature and thinking, but not investing suitable time in pursuits, instead trying to have 'quick fixes' - often I find belies a lack of knowledge around the quote myself (or perhaps I've just being elitist, yet again ).

[Arcesious]

Philosophy is all well and good for attaining 'wisdom', but there are limits to what it can do. As much as I like witty anecdotes of brilliant philosophers, philosophy isn't everything.

[Emperor Devon]

Philosophy is all well and good for attaining 'wisdom', but there are limits to what it can do.

 

hey good thing this thread was about favorite philosophers and not what philosophy can do

 

on the topic at hand i like ayn rand she doesn't take crap from anyone and incites rage with her name alone

[jonathan7]

Philosophy is all well and good for attaining 'wisdom', but there are limits to what it can do. As much as I like witty anecdotes of brilliant philosophers, philosophy isn't everything.

 

I'm becoming rather concerned about you - Philosophy isn't everything but "witty anecdotes" aren't philosophy. I think Philosophy is a lot more important than you may think - and what particular limits are you talking about? I would strongly recommend you at least read Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" before making such comments.

 

hey good thing this thread was about favorite philosophers and not what philosophy can do

 

on the topic at hand i like ayn rand she doesn't take crap from anyone and incites rage with her name alone

 

I'm not too familiar with Ayn Rand's work, I shall investigate

[El Sitherino]

Philosophy is all well and good for attaining 'wisdom', but there are limits to what it can do. As much as I like witty anecdotes of brilliant philosophers, philosophy isn't everything.

 

This in and of itself is a philosophy.

 

I think you've proven yourself wrong.

[Sabretooth]

I have yet to make a serious dive into Western Philosophy, but right now, no philosopher is higher than the Buddha for me. I love him because he was not influenced by anyone, because of his legend and most importantly, because his philosophy and teachings were surprising for their era; when everyone was seemingly engulfed in debating God and chaos and war and whatnot.

 

Buddha is first person I see who take the individual for what he is and that the individual must strive for enlightenment by himself and by renouncing his primal instincts. He is the first I see who claims that God, Origin and other mythological phenomena are in fact, irrelevant. I see Buddha's way as living for what you have now and making the most of it, rather than worrying about the past or future.

 

Assuredly, if you are doing well right now, the past was well enough and if you do good, the future will be good enough.

 

Again, pardon my lack of enlightenment on this topic.

---

Philosophy is all well and good for attaining 'wisdom', but there are limits to what it can do. As much as I like witty anecdotes of brilliant philosophers, philosophy isn't everything.

 

This in and of itself is a philosophy.

 

I think you've proven yourself wrong.

 

I would like you to share some witty anecdotes with us, Arcesious.

[jonathan7]

<snip>

 

I think that swings both ways to be honest, I can't claim a massive knowledge of Eastern Philosophy, I have a general idea of a few things and have read Confucious and some of the Religious texts, but beyond that I have little knowledge. - So I think we will bring different areas of knowledge forward to the conversation - if you want a brief and wide overview of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell's book on it is brilliant IMHO

 

Edit; removed response - However I will leave in this (incase its helpful...) Definition of Philosophy in my Oxford Wordfinder; 1. the use of reason and argument in seeking truth and knowledge of reality, esp. of the causes and nature of things and principles governing existence, the material universe, perception of physical phenomena, and human behaviour. 2a a particular system or belief set of beliefs reached by this. b a personal rule of life

[El Sitherino]

Buddha is first person I see who take the individual for what he is and that the individual must strive for enlightenment by himself and by renouncing his primal instincts. He is the first I see who claims that God, Origin and other mythological phenomena are in fact, irrelevant. I see Buddha's way as living for what you have now and making the most of it, rather than worrying about the past or future.

 

QFE.

[El Sitherino]

Philosophy is like Psychology and Sociology, it's a science of humanity.

 

Through observation one can gain many attributes, and make assessments.

[jonathan7]

Anyways, something I may or may not have confused, which I'll express in this question is this:

 

If this is the definition of philosphy:

 

Then what is the defference between philosphy and science? Is there none? Is there a fine line, or a blurry one?

 

To add to what Sithy put...

 

“The conceptions of life and the world which we call 'philosophical' are a product of two factors: one, inherited religious and ethical conceptions; the other, the sort of investigation which maybe called ‘scientific’, using this word in its broadest sense. Individual philosophers have differed widely in regard to the proportions in which these two factors entered into their systems, but it is the presence of both, in some degree, that characterizes philosophy.

 

‘Philosophy’ is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain.

 

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or of revelation. All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science, all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Mans land is philosophy. Almost all questions of interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subjective to matter? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Etc etc <snip set of philosophical questions> To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite, but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy”. – Bertrand Russell – in his Introduction to 'History of Western Philosophy'.

 

That's makes so much more sense...

 

Okay, so now it seems that I'd veiw it as 'the science of the human mind' or soemthing along those lines. Philosophy doesn't sound flawed to me anymore in and of itself, I think that what is flawed is the way it is sometimes applied to uber-critical/sceptical extremes...

 

For example, i see this very, very often:

 

"You are wrong because I have proof against A and for B, and you don't."

"That's a fallacy. I know what I beleive is true because of X and Z."

"That doesn't prove anything though! You're not being rational."

"You're using ad hominem!"

"No I'm not."

"You're also using the inductive fallacy with your so-called 'proof' of A."

"I don't beleive C because there is no proof for C."

"Well you can't disprove C because you're using fallacies D, E, and F."

"You're setting up a non-falsifiable position, which is unfair."

"Well that argument still doesn't prove anything."

"Your system of thinking is flawed, and you're not being open minded."

"And yet again, you use ad hominem again! And you're not being open minded either."

"But I have proof that my position is true. And you're using strawman fallacies.

"That statement in and of itself is a strawman fallacy."

"But you're avoiding the argument."

"And you're putting up all kinds of walls of fallacies."

"Forget it. I'm not arguing with you anymore."

"(sarcastic) Well that sure isn't open-minded of you..."

 

etc, etc, etc... That's where it seems to me, IMHO, that philosphy is used in to far of an extreme...

 

Firstly please give me an source/example of this... Your job in reviewing the debate, is to decide who is correct/incorrect, who's argument is weaker etc. Just because someone says something is a fallacy, or a strawman, does not mean it necessarily is.

 

In no serious Philosophy debate have I ever, ever heard ""Forget it. I'm not arguing with you anymore."

"(sarcastic) Well that sure isn't open-minded of you..."" - You may hear that on internet boards, and between pretend philosophers, but I have never in all the debates I've ever listened too, heard that.

[Totenkopf]

-.......You may hear that on internet boards, and between pretend philosophers, but I have never in all the debates I've ever listened too, heard that.

 

 

In the serious philosophical discussions you've been witness to, what has been the disengagment techniques when it's apparent to both parties that their lack of common first principles is basically causing them to talk past one another or at least keeping them from coming to any sort of agreement?

[Litofsky]

I'm new to the whole concept of "Philosophy," recently being exposed to such ideas, but I must say, it's an amazing idea. The mere idea of philosophy is just fun. To attain knowledge, discover truths, and find the very meaning of ideas? It's like a sweet candy after the dentist's office.

 

Despite the fact that I've only been recently exposed to these people (such as Voltaire, Nietzsche, and others), I intend to read their work. Until then, I don't really see how I can make an educated argument on who my favorite philosophers are.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions for a beginner in this field? I'm not looking to explore the meaning of life, only to get a basic grasp for this fairly new (to me) concept.

[jonathan7]

In the serious philosophical discussions you've been witness to, what has been the disengagment techniques when it's apparent to both parties that their lack of common first principles is basically causing them to talk past one another or at least keeping them from coming to any sort of agreement?

 

There is always a chair, who can swish in if need be, but in none of the debates I've listened too has the chair needed to 'referee'. Generally the debates are very civil - and indeed usually those debating have a good old tennis match of hitting points back and forth. - I also often get the impression that despite differences (say Atheist Philosopher vs Theist Philosopher) they are often friends, or at least have a respect for one another. And indeed despite his reputation, of all the debates of Dawkins, I've listen too, he has always been courteous and friendly to those he was debating with, indeed when he was Debating with McGrath, I recall Dawkins leaping to the defence of McGrath, when a member of the audience, asked a nasty loaded question. Here would be an example for you to review, I hope it helps answer your question - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

 

Does anyone have any suggestions for a beginner in this field? I'm not looking to explore the meaning of life, only to get a basic grasp for this fairly new (to me) concept.

 

'The Problems of Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell - I think is an excellent, readable and short start

[Litofsky]

'The Problems of Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell - I think is an excellent, readable and short start

 

I appreciate the recommendation, Jonathan. I'll try to pick it up as soon as I can.

 

I'll let you guys get back to your 'heated debate' now.

[Samuel Dravis]

No need to purchase it, Lightofsky; it's on the internet in many places. It's a good overview of what you're likely to find people talking about, anyway.

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Before I was exposed to Wittgenstein in a philosophy class, I had pretty much sunk into the belief that nothing was

certain

; Descartes' skepticism seemed to be inescapable (and Descartes' way out of his own skepticism faulty). In fact I disliked philosophy a lot before Wittgenstein - it only seemed to make troubles, not solve them. The very first words I ever read by him were these:

 

Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.

 

For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said.

 

It took me a while to come around to Wittgenstein's point of view, but since then I have read and learned a great deal. So far, Wittgenstein's "

ordinary language philosophy

" is exactly what I always wanted from philosophy: an answer to anything I might ask (including those in Russel's book). The idea that philosophy is

necessarily about words and how we use them

- I had not fully grasped that until long after I was introduced to Wittgenstein (and even now I have trouble applying it, I am so used to the normal methods). Wittgenstein is the most convincing and influential philosopher to my current thought.

 

A helpful way of putting his views, from

Culture and Value

:

"Words are deeds."

 

O. K. Bouwsma

My liking of Bouwsma is an extension of my liking of Wittgenstein. While Wittgenstein's writings were rather aphoristic, Bouwsma's are easier to understand and sometimes more developed. Three essays I particularly like from him are on: the nature of religious faith (and other similar concepts) as something distinctly different from scientific propositions, an explanation of Wittgenstein's "use is meaning" idea, and an exposition of the ontological argument.

 

Soren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard's

Fear and Trembling

was extremely interesting. While I don't think that K. was right about the absurdity of the "leap of faith" (foundational concepts can't be absurd), he exposed the differences between grammatical propositions and empirical ones very well.

 

Lao Tzu

tk102 encouraged me to read the

Tao Te Ching

a while back. It immediately stuck me as very similar to Wittgenstein in methodology: Wittgenstein's "forms of life" certainly seem to have been influenced by Tzu's "Tao", and the most pronounced similarities were in W.'s

On Certainty

(a good book if you're wondering about philosophical skepticism). I enjoyed

Tao Te Ching

a lot.

 

Socrates

I really liked reading the

Socratic dialogues

because questioning in that way reveals the properties of the concept under discussion (good, holy, etc). I think that if Socrates and Wittgenstein were contemporaries, they'd be drinking buddies.

 

Aristotle

I like Aristotle because I like

virtue ethics

. I'm not very well read in Aristotle beyond some of

Nicomachean Ethics

and various things I've read online about virtue ethics, so I can only really comment about that. I've grown to dislike consequentialist and deontological ethics systems (at least for personal use - consequentialism/deontology are

excellent

systems for lawmakers) because they are inadequate for various reasons (the classic "Would you lie to the Nazis about having Jews in your house" thought experiment for deontology is an example) and virtue ethics fits in better with my other philosophical predilections.

 

From what I've read of Nietzsche, I don't really like him. He just doesn't seem that interesting. What I liked best were some of his aphorisms.

[Arcesious]

As a philosophy fan, I would wager that you'll maintain these false opinions until you finally man up enough to actually learn about what you're insulting.

 

You seem to have opinions on things that you know nothing about - which is why it may feel to you as if we're often trying to correct you.

_EW_

 

I'm not insulting it (unless if somehow, I have no idea why, you would feel insulted by me.), I am attempting to debate and learn about it. I've already conceded that real philsophy is completely a good think- and my new stance is that I often see it used wrongly, or at least it seems that way.

 

And going into 'false opinions' and 'true opinions' sounds very scetchy...

I admit I am no expert in philosophy. Don't expect me to have a degree in it. Yes I am debating about its use without much knowledge of it. try to understand that I'm going on what I understand of it at the moment- and I want to learn. I'm going to be sceptical about the reasoning of its inner workings, of course- so, instead of telling me "You are wrong", tell me why the 'fallicious' opinions I'm holding are incorrect; and then what is correct.

 

Firstly please give me an source/example of this... Your job in reviewing the debate, is to decide who is correct/incorrect, who's argument is weaker etc. Just because someone says something is a fallacy, or a strawman, does not mean it necessarily is.

 

Well they are civilized, but it seems to me that both sides end up setting up seemingly 'non-falsifiable' defenses. darkins has always been a great debater, in my opinion. The particular debate I've always rolled my eyes at was the stood out to me as crap (IMO) was the Hitchens vs. D'Souza debate...

 

I would have to say that I prefer Dawkins over Hitchens... Hitchens is just too aggressive for my tastes... Then again... I haven't watched/listened to a whole lot of these debates... Only parts of them.

 

Ugh... As much as I hate to admit it I really don't know a whole lot about this stuff... And it's frankly kind of embarrassing now that I've waltzed into this discussion starting a debate I now know I can't win because of my lack of knowledge in so many things.

 

I'll have to try to find that Bertrand Russell book you've been suggesting throughout this thread since not reading any philosophy books and thn debating about all of it is pretty hypocritical.

 

The reason I haven't done this however is because, from all the philosphical quotes and whatnot I've heard (probably only a small fraction of them all), it all sounds the same I just haven't seen any new intriquing philosphical opinions that I haven't heard the basic jist of before.

 

If there are some really intriquing philosphical veiws beyond the common ones I've been hearing, please refer them to me to study.

 

(Unless of course Bertrand Russell's book has them I hope :/ )

 

Edit:

 

Samuel Dravis, I think you've just helped me find the kind of philosophy I like... It'll take awhile to learn but... Wittgenstein and the others sound very interesting. I've heard of Aristotle and Socrates before, but I haven't learned much about them... Thank you for all the links...

[Ray Jones]

all the philosphical quotes and whatnot I've heard (probably only a small fraction of them all), it all sounds the same I just haven't seen any new intriquing philosphical opinions that I haven't heard the basic jist of before

That is because that's what it often is: repetitive, bloated gibberish about always the same stuff. It's like looking at fractals, there's always a difference, but it keeps repeating itself endlessly while you look closer. Every fractal is different, but they are following the same scheme. So is the point of a philosophy (and thus what it says), it is always the same: describe the world using its own patterns and make it understandable within those terms. That's also one cause for the repetition you mention: most philosophers/philosophies talk about the same stuff anyway.

 

 

However, I'd argue that the point of philosophy itself is the very meaning of the word, philosophy, which is love of wisdom or love of knowledge. To me that means not attaining knowledge or wisdom, but the desire and striving to understand knowledge, and ultimately sticking to the wisdom that stems from it. In other words, I don't gain knowledge and wisdom through philosophy, but because of it. That is true philosophy, silent, without huge clouds of word, text and speech.

 

 

If there are some really intriquing philosphical veiws beyond the common ones I've been hearing, please refer them to me to study.

Don't flatter yourself, there won't be any. At least for the thoughtful, skilled mind. Don't get me wrong, most philosophic texts give an interesting read, but, I you ever took the time to lay back and think about the world, there won't be much new in them.

 

Anyway, I like this one very much:

 

Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian

all looking at a cup. The Englishman says, ‘That is a cup.’ The French-

man answers, ‘No it’s not. It’s a tasse.’ Then the Chinese comments,

‘You are both wrong. It’s a pei.’ Finally the Indonesian man laughs at the

others and says ‘What fools you are. It’s a cawan.’ Then the Englishman

get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, ‘I can prove that it is

a cup. My dictionary says so.’ ‘Then your dictionary is wrong,’ says the

Frenchman, ‘because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse.’ The Chinese

scoffs; ‘My dictionary says it’s a pei and my dictionary is thousands of

years older than yours so it must be right. And besides, more people

speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be a pei.’ While they

are squabbling and arguing with each other, a another man comes up,

drinks from the cup and then says to the others, ‘Whether you call it

a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to hold water

so that it can be drunk. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and

refresh your thirst.’

 

 

Also, I suggest reading Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness by John Briggs and F. David Peat. ^^

[Arcesious]

That is because that's what it often is: repetitive, bloated gibberish about always the same stuff. It's like looking at fractals, there's always a difference, but it keeps repeating itself endlessly while you look closer. Every fractal is different, but they are following the same scheme. So is the point of a philosophy (and thus what it says), it is always the same: describe the world using its own patterns and make it understandable within those terms. That's also one cause for the repetition you mention: most philosophers/philosophies talk about the same stuff anyway.

 

 

However, I'd argue that the point of philosophy itself is the very meaning of the word, philosophy, which is love of wisdom or love of knowledge. To me that means not attaining knowledge or wisdom, but the desire and striving to understand knowledge, and ultimately sticking to the wisdom that stems from it. In other words, I don't gain knowledge and wisdom through philosophy, but because of it. That is true philosophy, silent, without huge clouds of word, text and speech.

 

Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian

all looking at a cup. The Englishman says, ‘That is a cup.’ The French-

man answers, ‘No it’s not. It’s a tasse.’ Then the Chinese comments,

‘You are both wrong. It’s a pei.’ Finally the Indonesian man laughs at the

others and says ‘What fools you are. It’s a cawan.’ Then the Englishman

get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, ‘I can prove that it is

a cup. My dictionary says so.’ ‘Then your dictionary is wrong,’ says the

Frenchman, ‘because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse.’ The Chinese

scoffs; ‘My dictionary says it’s a pei and my dictionary is thousands of

years older than yours so it must be right. And besides, more people

speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be a pei.’ While they

are squabbling and arguing with each other, a another man comes up,

drinks from the cup and then says to the others, ‘Whether you call it

a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to hold water

so that it can be drunk. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and

refresh your thirst.’

 

I never thought of it like that before... That's brilliant.

[Corinthian]

Presumably? Because philosophers will argue about anything, because for the most part, they're incredibly superficial.

[jonathan7]

Presumably? Because philosophers will argue about anything, because for the most part, they're incredibly superficial.

 

Thanks to a friend of mine here is a definition;

 

Superficial:

shallow; not profound or thorough

insubstantial or insignificant

 

Surely as a loving Christian, representative of Jesus, you do not think anyone is insubstantial or insignificant?

 

Besides this point, I find it hard to see any logic in claiming a thinker (which is what a philosopher is) could be Superficial - it goes against the very nature of the pursuit of knowledge.

[Ray Jones]

I think arguing about what the cup is, not what it does, would not be exceedingly deep, indeed.

[Corinthian]

*Sigh* Allow me to correct myself, since apparently, the obvious is not obvious here. Philosophy, for the most part, is superficial.

[True_Avery]

*Sigh* Allow me to correct myself, since apparently, the obvious is not obvious here. Philosophy, for the most part, is superficial.

So, you're calling yourself superficial?

 

You post in a debate forum and share your philosophy of the world. And, correct me if I'm wrong, you're a christian and just called your religion superficial.

 

Asking questions and seeking the answers is not superficial. It is the human condition. The actions of an intelligent, free thinking mind trying to make sense of its surroundings.

 

If you are calling humans superficial, then I may agree with you. If you are calling the career superficial, then I'd direct you to the writers, movie makers, game makers, etc of our current time who have made millions off of it. If you are talking about the concept itself, I'd say you seem to have a dislike for the mind nature has given you.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.

[jonathan7]

No need to purchase it, Lightofsky; it's on the internet in many places. It's a good overview of what you're likely to find people talking about, anyway.

 

Sorry, I have a bias to wanting books in Print - I don't think most suffer from my expensive eccentricities.

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Before I was exposed to Wittgenstein in a philosophy class, I had pretty much sunk into the belief that nothing was

certain

; Descartes' skepticism seemed to be inescapable (and Descartes' way out of his own skepticism faulty). In fact I disliked philosophy a lot before Wittgenstein - it only seemed to make troubles, not solve them. The very first words I ever read by him were these:

 

It took me a while to come around to Wittgenstein's point of view, but since then I have read and learned a great deal. So far, Wittgenstein's "

ordinary language philosophy

" is exactly what I always wanted from philosophy: an answer to anything I might ask (including those in Russel's book). The idea that philosophy is

necessarily about words and how we use them

- I had not fully grasped that until long after I was introduced to Wittgenstein (and even now I have trouble applying it, I am so used to the normal methods). Wittgenstein is the most convincing and influential philosopher to my current thought.

 

A helpful way of putting his views, from

Culture and Value

:

"Words are deeds."

 

As we have slightly discussed before, I disagree with this point, though having not read TL-P, I shall not argue it further, until I have read it (I shall hopefully get a copy post haste!) - IIRC, I think it is interesting to note though; that Russell evidently didn't consider those questions to have been answered by Wittgenstein - as HoWP, was printed some 20 years after TL-P. I shall respond further with my thoughts having read it

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

Thank you, I was most intrigued to see which philosophers you were a fan of

 

From what I've read of Nietzsche, I don't really like him. He just doesn't seem that interesting. What I liked best were some of his aphorisms.

 

I would obviously disagree I think Ravi Zacherias in a lecture (thanks to Jae) I heard summed up Nietzsche, by saying he was one of the most honest thinkers of the 19th Century, his aphorisms are wonderful, and Ecce Homo, is probably my favourite of all hos works - which of his works did your read?

 

@Ray - much as I love you bro, I wasn't a fan of your little analogy

 

The reason I haven't done this however is because, from all the philosophical quotes and what not I've heard (probably only a small fraction of them all), it all sounds the same I just haven't seen any new intriguing philosophical opinions that I haven't heard the basic jist of before.

 

Firstly, and I going to try and hammer this in; Philosophy isn't quotes, its much much more than that.

 

If there are some really intriguing philosophical views beyond the common ones I've been hearing, please refer them to me to study.

 

With respect to Ray, I do disagree, I think myself that there are many different philosophical styles out there, and while there are quite a few things that an intuitive mind may come across - original thinkers, do come up with ideas previously not thought of - Descartes, I think started modern Philosophy as we understand it, by questioning the status quo.

 

*Sigh* Allow me to correct myself, since apparently, the obvious is not obvious here. Philosophy, for the most part, is superficial.

 

Given, that none of your posts have actually had anything really to do with the thread, pray tell me, from your extensive philosophical readings, which particular philosophies/philosophers are superficial? And do you have any favourite philosophers, and if so why?

[Jae Onasi]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Corinthian, that you think these people are simply superficial.

 

You'll be missing out on so much of the depth of great thinkers that have caused fundamental paradigm shifts throughout history. If these people were so superficial, we'd be without the Socratic method, Platonic thinking, Christian concern for humanity. There would have been no Christ inspiring people like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi. We'd be without Islam which has fundamentally altered the shape of the entire Middle East and most of northern Africa, and without Confucius or Buddha whose thinking have become the underpinnings for Far Eastern culture. We'd be without the great thinkers during the time of early modern Europe that allowed the flowering of science. No Descartes, no Voltaire, no Kant allowing us to further develop reason that became the basis for democracy. No Nietzsche being used and abused in such a way that the entire 20th century was consumed in both cold and open warfare for ideals developed from his supposedly superficial thoughts.

 

You are missing so much of the richness of the fabric of life and history, the very moral and philosophical basis for the United States and indeed the world, and that is a pity.