I like Kant and like to think of myself as a kind of a utilitarian when it comes to ethics. I am also fascinated by Daniel Dennett's philosophy of mind as an extension of Skinner's behaviorist approach.
Your favorite philosopher
- Thread starter axlryder
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, he's best known for two books, Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Consciousness Explained, which are both excellent. In terms of pure philosophy, my favourite work of his is Freedom Evolves, which is an in-depth look at the question of free will and determinism and whether the two can be reconciled (which he believes they can, and argues it very convincingly)axlryder said:
Many of my friends at university were philosophy students and they were all irritating. You could never have a proper conversation with them because they would pick you up on the smallest logical error. What I like about Dennett is that he never seems to be playing that game. He's great at puncturing preconceived notions of philosophers (particularly the idea of 'philosophical zombies' - things that act just like people but have no conscious experience) but mostly he just makes interesting points clearly, concisely and often wittily.
His most important contribution to philosophy in my opinion is the concept of the various 'stances' you can take towards other things in the universe - as a way of avoiding the question of what something actually is; rather similar to Aristotle's classification of causes. So when faced with an object, you can face it with the physical stance: you can just treat it as a set of atoms obeying physical laws. You can always do this, but it doesn't have much explanatory power. You can also take the design stance - that's when you imagine that the object is 'for' something, and try to explain its properties in that way. Finally, you can take the intentional stance, which is to imagine that the object 'wants' something - it has beliefs and desires. If taking the intentional stance has some predictive power, he argues, then it is useful, whether or not it is actually true.
That's it in a nutshell, anyway. I hugely recommend him. I first encountered his work through the book he co-authored with Douglas Hofstadter, my all-time scientific hero, and I've never read anything by him I didn't like. Even Breaking The Spell, his book on religion, is interesting and an original take on the subject - he dares to ask the question of whether religion might be a good or bad thing independent of its truth.
It would have to be Mr. Karl Pilkington."Just do your bit" to his views on common sense in his animated show. (if a man got crippled from a bike accident if he chosen not to wear his helmet) Karl gets put in charge of the situation and given the circumstances has to speak to the man's kids.He ends it by saying " Oh did your dad put his shoes on this morning? he did, im surprised he didnt need help with that.
Of course everything he says is pure gold but i think of him as a modern philosopher/ little Englander happy with what he has and not understanding why people needlessly harm eachother.
Of course everything he says is pure gold but i think of him as a modern philosopher/ little Englander happy with what he has and not understanding why people needlessly harm eachother.
Clive Staples Lewis.
Everything he ever wrote brings tears to my eyes and the next person who suggests that The Screwtape Letters was a kid's book is going to be eating their fucking teeth because what kind of deranged lunatic would give that book to a child?
Everything he ever wrote brings tears to my eyes and the next person who suggests that The Screwtape Letters was a kid's book is going to be eating their fucking teeth because what kind of deranged lunatic would give that book to a child?
George Carlin. yea not really a philosopher per se but eh, thats my pick.
Hands down, no competition, one of the smartest minds of this past century.
Watching that right now (while i should be doing school work, but thats a side note)
Edit; started to read the comments and damn
High five!
Hands down, no competition, one of the smartest minds of this past century.
Watching that right now (while i should be doing school work, but thats a side note)
Edit; started to read the comments and damn
I'm not alone! yay.AT God said:
High five!
I have to say Didactylos. His theory on life 'Things just happen, what the hell' is a masterpiece.
...
...
Plato and Pythagoras have some good stuff, but my favorite modern philosopher is Don Marquis. My final paper for my ethics class was based on his theories on abortion. He theorized that the only thing which makes killing an adult wrong is its effect on the victim, i.e. the loss of a valuable future. It's a great theory for explaining why we find tragedies like Sandy Hook so appalling, whereas euthanizing sick elderly people is not as bad (though certainly still controversial). It also establishes a non-arbitrary reason why a sperm can be killed but a zygote cannot. Great arguments, especially compared to proabortionists like Thomson and Warren, whose theories fall apart once you start believing in personal responsibility and basic human equality.
I freaking hate Nietzsche. Makes sense that someone who didn't believe in morality died of syphilis. Where's your lack of a god now?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUDGdSIENQ
I freaking hate Nietzsche. Makes sense that someone who didn't believe in morality died of syphilis. Where's your lack of a god now?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUDGdSIENQ
Intolerant people like him and Richard Dawkins are the reason some 35-40% (it's somewhere around that number, but don't quote me on it) Americans don't believe in evolution.Flatfrog said:
Well just because it's not "science", it doesn't mean it's bullshit. He developed the idea of the unconscious, which has no mathematical proof whatsoever, but has been proven through empirical evidence and observation.Deathmageddon said:
Feudalism is a form of government not economy , we've always had a capitalistic free market economy the only thing that's ever really changed is moving to a currency from a barter system, and dropping the gold standard for a mess of crap thats leading to massive problem.In Search of Username said:
For my opinion Capitalism is a terrible form of economy it really doesn't work well , its just success full
Adam smith was a bit of a nutter imo he thought the hand of god was the hidden mechanism of the market.
OK, not wanting to derail the thread but:Deathmageddon said:
What is intolerant about Dennett? Have you read anything he has written? Or Dawkins either, for that matter? They write clearly and simply about their subject in the face of a constant barrage of hatred, bile and actual threats. And just to make it clear, this isn't because of *their* attitude, it's purely because they have the temerity to profess a public belief in evolution - if you don't believe me then look at the abuse David Attenborough, the most softly-spoken, kindly man receives from the same people.
Blaming atheists for other people's ignorance is ridiculous. The reason huge numbers of Americans don't believe in evolution is a dedicated and hugely funded misinformation campaign perpetrated by variously ignorant, misguided or plain malign individuals on a massive scale. And frankly, thank Thor that some people have the courage to stand in the face of it.
Niccolò Machiavelli - I just love his pragmitisim. Real advice for real problems being suffered for the time he was in. Some of his stuff we will scoff at today but in his time it was incredibly practical and terribly effective.
Hegel. His philosophy and written works are argueably the most complex and difficult to comprehend, but when you finally do (or at least, when you think you have), you realize it is the most brilliant systematic philosophy ever made. Too tired to delve into the explaination now though 
I'll admit, I'm more familiar with Dawkins than Dennett, but they are two of the "Four Horseman of New Atheism," New Atheism being, by definition, completely intolerant of religion (sentence 1 on the wikipedia page). If they *merely* tried to educate people about evolution, that would be one thing, and there would be a lot more theistic evolutionists around. They attempt to use evolution as proof against the existence of God, which, as you can imagine, turns people away. Their work reinforces the lie that science inherently rejects metaphysical claims. In reality, such claims cannot be evaluated using the scientific method (not falsifiable).Flatfrog said:
I'm not blaming atheists in general. I would love to hear more about this "hugely funded misinformation campaign perpetrated by variously ignorant, misguided or plain malign individuals on a massive scale" you THINK exists, because last time I checked, public schools only teach evolution. And I wouldn't be thanking Thora - dude had to dress in drag just to retrieve his little club.
I'm confused now lol. A claim ceases to be philosophical once you have the ability to prove it, whereas Freud's methodology was scientific.HoneyVision said: