Favourite Philosophers and why...

[jonathan7]

I frankly don't understand what you're getting at.

 

Thread title; "Favourite Philosophers and why..." - Please indicate at any point when you answered that question, perhaps I missed it...

[Jae Onasi]

Thread title; "Favourite Philosophers and why..." - Please indicate at any point when you answered that question, perhaps I missed it...

 

Bingo.

 

I just did a massive thread pruning of completely off-topic discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of philosophy. Start another thread for that topic if you'd like, but this thread is specific in its intent, which is 'Favorite Philosophers and why.' Please keep it related to your favorites, or the post will be edited/deleted.

[jrrtoken]

Hm... well, Groucho, I mean, Karl Marx, has to be somewhere on my list. Other than trying to modernize beliefs that were already invented thousands of years before him by Jesus H. Christ, Buddha, and others, Marx's legacy has had the largest impact on the present day as we know it, and I dare anyone to prove me otherwise.

[jonathan7]

Hm... well, Groucho, I mean, Karl Marx, has to be somewhere on my list. Other than trying to modernize beliefs that were already invented thousands of years before him by Jesus H. Christ, Buddha, and others, Marx's legacy has had the largest impact on the present day as we know it, and I dare anyone to prove me otherwise.

 

Interesting I like Marx, I think Communism is a wonderful idea in theory, just doesn't work in practice.

 

(A quick side note; Given Communisms nearly fallen (not that it was ever achieved how Marx would have wanted) - and given the power still of religions such as Islam and Christianity, I would argue that while Communism had a massive impact on the previous century - I would question how much it will effect this century? As such are not both Islam and Christianity not still having a large impact?)

[jrrtoken]

Interesting I like Marx, I think Communism is a wonderful idea in theory, just doesn't work in practice.

I think it could work, but only under the right conditions. It is my belief that communism must be introduced to society gradually, which is why most communist states that were brought about upon an overnight revolution (So to speak) have ended up failing in the long run. Also, communism should only work in relatively small populations. Close knit villages and tribes are both examples of where communism could greatly prosper, but I believe it might also work in city-states.

 

(A quick side note; Given Communisms nearly fallen (not that it was ever achieved how Marx would have wanted) - and given the power still of religions such as Islam and Christianity, I would argue that while Communism had a massive impact on the previous century - I would question how much it will effect this century? As such are not both Islam and Christianity not still having a large impact?)

I wasn't really implying modern philosophy or religion, but more so modern history.

[Miltiades]

I don't know every important philosopher out there, and the ones I know well come from ancient times and I can't say I have favorites in that period. I do like Socrates' way of doing things, but I can't say I agree with his philosophical beliefs (or those of Plato).

 

From a lot of the philosophers I have learned about, I have seen some things that I can understand and agree on. But none that really is my favorite. The one that come closest would probably be Russell, though I don't know that much about him to find him to be my favorite. I've read a little bit in The History of Western Philosophy, but it doesn't say a lot about his personal beliefs. His views on Theology (as seen in Why I am not a Christian) are largely the same as mine, and he's, in my opinion, a very intelligent man. So you could say Russell is my favorite, though less about his philosophical beliefs and more on his other beliefs.

 

I'd like to learn more about Eastern Philosophy, who know, perhaps there I'll find something I can relate to.

[Samuel Dravis]

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

Oh, I love to have printed books as well. Just pointing out a resource.

 

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

I would not really recommend the Tractatus as an introduction to Wittgenstein, or even as really representative (it is, but in theme only) of his later work, which is the part I am interested in. If you were to get any book by Wittgenstein, I'd suggest the Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein's post - 1930 work could easily be seen as a severe criticism of the Tractatus (by extension, I suppose, of Russel as well).

 

As for whether Russel ever accepted Wittgenstein's later work, I'm not sure it's particularly significant - many people disagreed with Wittgenstein because his method of doing philosophy was so radically different.

 

Another point I like about Wittgenstein's work is that it is very accessible, sometimes deceptively so. I mean that you can see the ideas he presents, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll immediately see how far you can take them! He uses a lot of examples illustrating how words are used as well.

 

A note on "the meaning of a word lies in its use": This is not as threatening as it might appear. For example, someone might object that we're not talking about words, we're talking about concepts we use words to discuss. A Wittgenstenian would deny the distinction that there are two separate things involved in the discussion (e.g. the word "good" and concept of good). Instead, he'd say that how we use the word good and the concept of good are necessarily connected, although the word itself - the arrangement of letters - may be arbitrary. Since this is the case, we can convert a question like:

 

"How do I know what is real?"

 

into

 

"How do I apply the word 'real' correctly?"

 

This has two benefits. First, it allows us to actually answer the question (helpful!). Second, it eliminates the problems caused by certain forms of expression that get hold of us and make us misuse our own language. You mentioned Descartes; he's a perfect example of this. Everything he doubts he lacks grounds for doubting... he lacks the circumstances which would make his doubts possible.

 

Interestingly, the Tractatus was largely a result of Russel's influence - W. studied under Russel and was great friends with him for some time - and Wittgenstein's own leanings towards a sort of mysticism. The logical atomism of the Tractatus is extremely similar to the logical atomism espoused by Russel.

 

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?

I read The Antichrist and some of Thus Spake Zarathustra. While it did have some interesting points, I simply didn't find it as amazing as people often speak of him as being.

[Ray Jones]

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

Hm, not my analogy. Someone else's, I must admit. In fact, I read it in some kind of Q&A about Buddhism. The question was like "Is Buddhism the superior religion?" However, I find it quite intriguing, because there is a truth to it regarding a great of debates, or how people handle things, in general.

 

 

With respect to Ray, I do disagree, I think myself that there are many different philosophical styles out there

Oh, I think that too. Probably, I have not said it clear enough. I was aiming at that when I said "Every fractal is different, but they are following the same scheme."

 

 

original thinkers, do come up with ideas previously not thought of

Not said or written down before, maybe, but not thought of, no.

[Darth InSidious]

The problem with Nietzsche is that he engages with the whole history of Western thought - to avoid falling into the trap of fairly facile slogans, it is necessary to have a strong grasp of that. Heidegger instructed his students only to read Neitzsche after studying Aristotle for 15 years.

 

Which brings us fairly neatly to Aristotle. Already recommended by Sam, this thinker is important for his impact, and because his thought contains many important concepts, such as the Four Causes and the Golden Mean (touching in part on Sam's brief commentary), and his pre-eminence in metaphysics (the name for which in fact comes from one of his books). Aristotle has been the foundation-stone of Western philosophy since about the thirteenth century.

 

Piety requires us to honor truth above our friends.

 

And that is thanks to Thomas Aquinas. Thomas is difficult to pin down as anything in particular: he straddled philosophy, theology, epistemology and politics. As such he doesn't fit into any particular category.

 

He is, however, an extremely important thinker, since he almost single-handedly changed the dominant classical philosopher in the Western world from Plato to Aristotle. Not only that, but in his extensive writings he drew on all the greatest thinkers of the day and from the past (from Avicenna to Augustine) , refining and blending their thought with a linguistic precision that has been found to be extraordinarily cohesive even in the eyes of analytical philosophy and post-Wittgensteinian thought. His restoration of natural law ethics has influenced many ethicists who followed, and his principle of double effect is still widely applied, particularly to medical ethics. But perhaps his most important influence is in his development of the concept of a just war, and his advocation of both ius ad bellum and ius in bello, which underpins much of the modern understanding, and without which our outlook upon what was to be considered a war crime would be much less clear. His influence is enormous, his thought rigorous, he is without doubt one of the foremost of the scholastics.

Law: an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community.

 

Going off the general direction of this post, although he strictly speaking probably doesn't count as a philosopher, I'd justify the inclusion of Ptah-hotep here as an ethicist, primarily concerned with eudaimonia, in its sense of a 'life of blessedness'; in this sense, his ethics derives from a similar source to that of Aristotle. Living in the 24th century BC, Ptah-hotep was vizier to King Djedkare Isesi in the Egyptian fifth dynasty, in the Old Kingdom and was buried at Saqqara. According to Egyptian legend, he lived to one-hundred-and-ten years (a life considered worthy of a sage), and wrote for his son. It became the closest thing to an Egyptian best-seller, and seems to have been popular throughout the history pharaonic Egypt.

 

The one work attributed to Ptah-hotep, an instruction on upright behaviour, is found no earlier than the Middle Kingdom, but differs from many of the Middle Kingdom manuscripts by being concerned more with efficiency at work and surviving courtly life than with what we now might term virtues. Some, like Grimal, attribute the work to his grandson, Ptah-hotep Tshefi, but it is by no means agreed, and others hold that it is essentially a Middle Kingdom composition. It is claimed by the text that it is written by the vizier for his son.

 

His advice is sensible, down-to-earth and avoids both lofty irrelevance and nitpicking. It must be read with some caution, however. Some of it is difficult to follow, at times talks in terms that may well have been clear to the ancient Egyptian but now are incomprehensible, and at times comes out with comments we may not have been expecting, or seem somewhat arbitrary (the instruction not to copulate with effeminate boys springs to mind in particular...). Nevertheless, it is worth a read.

 

Do not be haughty because of your knowledge,

But take counsel with the unlearned man as with the learned,

For no-one has ever attained perfection of competence,

And there is no craftsman who has acquired (full) mastery.

Good advice is rarer than emeralds,

But yet it may be found even among women at the grindstones.

 

I also particularly like Ayn Rand for her sound advice on children:

Speak roughly to your little boy

and beat him when he sneezes

he only does it to annoy

because he knows it teases.

 

I speak severely to my boy

I beat him when he sneezes

for he can thoroughly enjoy

the pepper when he pleases

[Samuel Dravis]

On the subject of Aristotle, this is an excellent passage (Nicomachean Ethics, Ch. 4 section 5-7):

 

"We must notice, however, the difference between arguments from principles and arguments toward principles. For indeed Plato was right to be puzzled by this, when he used to ask if the argument set out from the principles or led toward them-- just as on a race course the path may go from the starting line to the far end, or back again. For we should certainly begin from things known, but things are known in two ways, for some are known to us, and some are known without qualification.

 

That is why we need to be brought up in fine habits if we are to be adequate students of fine and just things, and of political question generally. For we begin from the belief that something is true; if this is apparent enough to us, we can begin without also knowing why it is true. Someone who was well brought up has the beginnings, or can easily acquire them. Someone who neither has them nor can acquire them should listen to Hesiod: 'He who grasps everything himself is best of all; he is noble who also listens to one who has spoken well; but he who neither grasps it himself nor takes it to heart from another is a useless man.'"

[Achilles]

Favorite? I don't know if I have a favorite. I do have some that have been substantially influential in my life.

 

John Rawls, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris. I'm sure there are others that I've studied over the years that have also helped to shape my thinking, however these are the names that stand out.

[ChAiNz.2da]

the original post the last few were referring to was deleted by the poster(ee) so I snipped the other comments to maintain thread continuity - Cz

 

Jae ninja'd Cz!