What it says on the tin. Who is your favorite philosopher and why? Obviously since we're talking about favorites I can't exactly ask people not to bring up certain, more common names (Nietzsche, Aristotle, Russel, etc), but less obvious ones are very welcome if only for the sake of variety.
Your favorite philosopher
- Thread starter axlryder
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not really a philosopher (actually, totally not a philosopher - although he did translate and comment on Nietzsche), but still one of the sharper minds of the 20th century: Henry Louis Mencken. A lot of his critique of society is still perfectly valid today. Which can mean that society didn't improve, nor really regress.
A more straight example would be Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I enjoyed reading the first two-thirds of The Black Swan. Because I apparently hate life, and am a sucker for epistemology.
A more straight example would be Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I enjoyed reading the first two-thirds of The Black Swan. Because I apparently hate life, and am a sucker for epistemology.
John Rawls! A famous ethics philosopher. I agree with a lot of what he said. He's kind of fallen out of fashion these days, but out of all the ethical philosophers, I agree with his positions the most. He was very sensible - keen to acknowledge and care for the suffering of others, but not so far up his own behind to neglect reality or practicality.
This thread might be a honey trap for some of those pretentious douches who think that knowing a philosopher or two means you're 'wise'. They're all over my university carrying texts by Plato and Socrates, pretending to be 'deep'.
But I do like Foucault.
But I do like Foucault.
Don't suppose anyone knows of the social scientist Howard Bloom? I like the guy because he develops what he's seen from both scientific expertise and experience. Go and watch some of the Howard the Humongous episodes he did with The Amazing Atheist: that shit is interesting as fuck.
Well, I can't really pretend to know anything about philosophers or even much about philosophy in general. However, I do love Bill Hicks, who sort of blended comedy and philosophy in his shows. Sort of. A little bit. A great mind, and I only wish I'd got to meet him before he died.
There are many stops I would make if I had a time machine, and to go meet Bill Hicks would be one of them.
There are many stops I would make if I had a time machine, and to go meet Bill Hicks would be one of them.
Jesus Christ.
And hopefully to prevent this from turning into a religious discussion: I am an agnostic. I make no claims that he is or isn't divine. I make no claims that he is or isn't a real person historically rather than just an amalgamation of ideas and stories attributed to a name. For all intents and purposes, barring discovery of time travel, he is a real person historically speaking, and probably the most important Philosopher that has yet lived on this island we call Earth.
One could easily spend hours dissecting the philosophies and ideas attributed to him as well as his profound effect on religion and society. But he's my favorite philosopher for a much more limited reason than that. The birthing of an idea ignored for a long time before it was re-popularized by Count Leo Tolstoy in his Kingdom of God Essays. An idea that I sincerely hope continues to grow in popularity, as it has been, and changes the way we treat our fellow human beings.
Every single non-violent movement every pacifist has stemmed from Jesus' sermon on the mount speech. The idea that the only way to break the cycle of violence is to replace it with one of love. That we should turn the other cheek, to not back down but to not respond in kind to those who would hurt us. The US civil rights movement, the Indian independence movement, the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, the velvet revolution, the Rosenstrasse protest in the heart of Nazi Berlin; are all heritage from that simple idea.
And hopefully to prevent this from turning into a religious discussion: I am an agnostic. I make no claims that he is or isn't divine. I make no claims that he is or isn't a real person historically rather than just an amalgamation of ideas and stories attributed to a name. For all intents and purposes, barring discovery of time travel, he is a real person historically speaking, and probably the most important Philosopher that has yet lived on this island we call Earth.
One could easily spend hours dissecting the philosophies and ideas attributed to him as well as his profound effect on religion and society. But he's my favorite philosopher for a much more limited reason than that. The birthing of an idea ignored for a long time before it was re-popularized by Count Leo Tolstoy in his Kingdom of God Essays. An idea that I sincerely hope continues to grow in popularity, as it has been, and changes the way we treat our fellow human beings.
Every single non-violent movement every pacifist has stemmed from Jesus' sermon on the mount speech. The idea that the only way to break the cycle of violence is to replace it with one of love. That we should turn the other cheek, to not back down but to not respond in kind to those who would hurt us. The US civil rights movement, the Indian independence movement, the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, the velvet revolution, the Rosenstrasse protest in the heart of Nazi Berlin; are all heritage from that simple idea.
Bingo. Well said.Mycroft Holmes said:
I'd like to say Jesus too, but as a Christian, I'm not sure if it'd be fair to count a god as a philosopher, so I'll say C.S. Lewis. A brilliant man with an absolutely uncanny ability to make the spiritual understandable (The Screwtape Letters) and the mundane breathtaking (The Great Divorce), Lewis' body of work, I think, manages to capture and explain everything modern Christianity should be.
Plato.
His Tripartite system is quite interesting, as is the Theory of Forms/Ideas, even if it has a few holes.
His Tripartite system is quite interesting, as is the Theory of Forms/Ideas, even if it has a few holes.
Every one know that there is only ONE correct answer to this question and any one who say otherwise is a fool of the highest order-the philosopher of the modern age I present to you the one and only:
I bring you some of the vast magnitude of his knowledge:
Albert Camus.
I love his philosophical stance on being aware of our own mortality but not being in any way accepting of it; the idea that solidarity with other people can help us keep strong in the face of that mortality; his political stance that we should work to improve society without taking the easy way out of hoping for a revolution that would magically transform the world; his complete opposition to killing in any form, be it war, the death penalty, murder, etc.; his refusal to go along with other French philosophers of his period who were busy making excuses for the horrors going on in communist states; his beautifully written novels and short fiction; and of course some of his excellent quotes:
"Man is mortal. That may be; but let us die resisting; and if our lot is complete annihilation, let us not behave in such a way that it seems justice!"
"Do not wait for the last judgement; it takes place every day."
Yes, Camus is absolutely great.
I love his philosophical stance on being aware of our own mortality but not being in any way accepting of it; the idea that solidarity with other people can help us keep strong in the face of that mortality; his political stance that we should work to improve society without taking the easy way out of hoping for a revolution that would magically transform the world; his complete opposition to killing in any form, be it war, the death penalty, murder, etc.; his refusal to go along with other French philosophers of his period who were busy making excuses for the horrors going on in communist states; his beautifully written novels and short fiction; and of course some of his excellent quotes:
"Man is mortal. That may be; but let us die resisting; and if our lot is complete annihilation, let us not behave in such a way that it seems justice!"
"Do not wait for the last judgement; it takes place every day."
Yes, Camus is absolutely great.
Rumi for sure. His poetry is incredible and deep. I have a difficult time deciding between Thoreau and Emerson for second place.
For what its worth, Smith himself was not the advocate of an utterly unfettered market, as some like to imagine him. He recognised the dangers of corporate exploitation, & argued in favour of greater equity for the worker.NearLifeExperience said:
As for me, I'd say Thomas Paine. Well-argued, well-written, easy to read exploration of human rights, constitutionalism, and the French Revolution. Even better, "Rights of Man" is amusingly peppered with personal insults aimed at Edmund Burke. Enjoyed it.
Wittgenstein!
A crazy person who brought some level-headed logic to the world of philosophy, and so effectively ending all this nonsense talk. Twice. Possibly.
So... Anything which isn't a fact is outside 'the world', it's just opinion. And trying to get to 'the truth' about things without a factual basis is nonsense (including the Tractatus itself). So people should stop trying.
Which is not to say that he believed ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc were nonsense and not worth talking about. My interpretation (and this is a controversial interpretation) is that while he believed that those things were nonsense, actually they were the ONLY things worth talking about, but philosophers shouldn't pretend they're saying anything factual about them. And anything that IS factual falls within the range of scientists, not philosophers.
... He later had other theories which were less pithy about the nature of language and meaning (how we can talk about non-factual things without talking nonsense).
Cheers!
A crazy person who brought some level-headed logic to the world of philosophy, and so effectively ending all this nonsense talk. Twice. Possibly.
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy -- and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the only strictly correct one.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
So... Anything which isn't a fact is outside 'the world', it's just opinion. And trying to get to 'the truth' about things without a factual basis is nonsense (including the Tractatus itself). So people should stop trying.
Which is not to say that he believed ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc were nonsense and not worth talking about. My interpretation (and this is a controversial interpretation) is that while he believed that those things were nonsense, actually they were the ONLY things worth talking about, but philosophers shouldn't pretend they're saying anything factual about them. And anything that IS factual falls within the range of scientists, not philosophers.
... He later had other theories which were less pithy about the nature of language and meaning (how we can talk about non-factual things without talking nonsense).
Cheers!