Who is your favorite philosopher?

  • Thread starter jduster
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation includes discussions on various philosophers such as Hume, Lao Tzu, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Leibniz, Quine, Putnam, Russell, Rorty, Aristotle, Lindsay Lohan, Samuel Clemens, Ambrose Bierce, George Carlin, Jean Paul Sartre, Noam Chomsky, Parmenides, and Zeno of Elea. Some participants express their preferences and reasons for choosing certain philosophers, while others bring up the importance of Eastern philosophers and the need to not take life too seriously. There is also a mention of The Dude, a laid back and humorous figure who represents the idea of not taking life too seriously.

Favorite philosopher?

  • socrates

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • plato

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • aristotle

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • nietzsche

    Votes: 8 9.9%
  • kierkegaard

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • kant

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • hume

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • aquinas

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • mill

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • smith

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • locke

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • berkeley

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • liebniz

    Votes: 6 7.4%
  • spinoza

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • russel

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • wittingstein

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • other

    Votes: 19 23.5%

  • Total voters
    81
  • #1
jduster
2
0
Hume is my favorite.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Tao Te Ching is among the top 3 all time best selling books in the world, but you left out Lao Tzu.
 
  • #3
I'd vote Spinoza. But, Wittgenstein is the modern version of him.
 
  • #4
Wittgenstein. Late Wittgenstein.
 
  • #5
This late/early never really made much sense to me. I mean he says that the Investigations is sort of a continuation of earlier work. A "contrast" is the term he used.
 
  • #6
It's obviously a different philosophical direction and style no matter how sharp one considers the distinction.
 
  • #7
It always seemed to me as a more sociological and semi-psychological/cognitive approach. The Investigations that is.
 
  • #8
I would have voted, but you left out Eddie Lawrence. You left out Wittgenstein too.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
I'd find this more interesting if reasons were given for the choice, for example, what is preferred about late Wittgenstein?
 
  • #10
Some of you choose Liebnitz. Could you explain why? I mean, how does his philosophy of monads make any sense? What is the holistic view?
 
  • #11
fuzzyfelt said:
I'd find this more interesting if reasons were given for the choice, for example, what is preferred about late Wittgenstein?
Lao Tzu has the elegant simplicity of good physics. Its like poetry, either you like it or you don't and there's no accounting for taste.

Wittgenstein would be my second choice. I'd compare his later work to that of Socrates who managed to shift the focus in Greek philosophy away from metaphysics and more towards ethics and logistics by a simple and creative use of their own traditional Reductio ad absurdum approach. In his later work Wittgenstein helped to shift the focus of academic philosophy from Continental philosophy to Analytic philosophy and linguistics using again a simple and creative approach that incorporated the traditional logistics. Like Socrates' philosophy that of Wittgenstein is as interesting for its sweeping impact on academic philosophy as it is in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
wuliheron said:
Lao Tzu has the elegant simplicity of good physics. Its like poetry, either you like it or you don't and there's no accounting for taste.

Wittgenstein would be my second choice. I'd compare his later work to that of Socrates who managed to shift the focus in Greek philosophy away from metaphysics and more towards ethics and logistics by a simple and creative use of their own traditional Reductio ad absurdum approach. In his later work Wittgenstein helped to shift the focus of academic philosophy from Continental philosophy to Analytic philosophy and linguistics using again a simple and creative approach that incorporated the traditional logistics. Like Socrates' philosophy that of Wittgenstein is as interesting for its sweeping impact on academic philosophy as it is in and of itself.

Thank you, wuliheron, that is exactly what I was hoping for! I think it is interesting to see what we find especially appealing in differing ideas. An elegant simplicity of good physics sounds a good reason. And thanks for the explanation you gave for late Wittgenstein, too.
 
  • #13
fuzzyfelt said:
Thank you, wuliheron, that is exactly what I was hoping for! I think it is interesting to see what we find especially appealing in differing ideas. An elegant simplicity of good physics sounds a good reason. And thanks for the explanation you gave for late Wittgenstein, too.

You're welcome.
 
  • #14
I'm going to go with Leibniz because he invented differential and integral calculus...
 
  • #15
Either W.V.O. Quine or Hilary Putnam.

No love for analytic philosophy? Russell is the only one on the list and his name is spelled wrong.
 
  • #16
Rorty is becoming my favourite philosopher. I love his nonchalant philosophy bashing.
 
  • #17
.



Aristotle.




.
 
  • #18
Lindsay Lohan

Lindsay Lohan said:
People go to college to find who they are as a person and find what they want to do in life, and I kind of already know that so it would be like I`d be taking a step back or something.
 
  • #19
FlexGunship said:
Lindsay Lohan

People go to college to find who they are as a person and find what they want to do in life, and I kind of already know that so it would be like I`d be taking a step back or something.

That requires translation from the ancient Hollyberic to modern. According to the Google translator, we get ~ "I have $100 million in the bank".
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
That requires translation from the ancient Hollyberic to modern. According to the Google translator, we get ~ "I have $100 million in the bank".

The more accurate translation, "I can be rich, famous, and party all the time without going to school."
 
  • #21
None of my top three were in there, even though they are all dead and all widely quoted:

Samuel Clemens
Ambrose Bierce
George Carlin
(not necessarily in that order)
 
  • #23
Hmm... Wittingstein is that dude who wrote so incomprehensible that we now enjoy spelling his name incorrectly? I totally agree! :tongue:
 
  • #24
wuliheron said:
The Tao Te Ching is among the top 3 all time best selling books in the world, but you left out Lao Tzu.
The Eastern Tradition & Philosophers are quite often, unfortunately, overlooked i think this would be one of those cases.

Jean Paul Sartre, his philosophy is simply beautiful
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/sartre%20sum.html
 
  • #25
other is my favourite, for his wider point of view.
 
  • #26
Wittgenstein

After I understood him (or at least perceived to), everything else seemed like poetic garbage.
 
  • #27
Not Socrates. Reputedly he has more questions than answers.
 
  • #28
Noam Chomsky
 
  • #29

The best philosophers EVER!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
my two favorites are

parmenides
zeno of elea

what do you guys think about these two?
 
  • #31
fashizzle said:
my two favorites are

parmenides
zeno of elea

what do you guys think about these two?
Parmenides is OK, but that's just one man's opinion. Zeno is hard to approach.
 
  • #32
The Dude
 
  • #33
My father's friend. Laid back, serious and very funny guy. He can make life outside of work seem like such a joke, and that I believe is the key to life. Don't take things that shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place, because if problems arise from them you are likely to burn bridges and do things that you would later regret in life.
 
  • #34
Spinoza´s pantheistic account of God as synonym of Nature, the unmoved mover and the True substance, as his conception of Ethics as the human drive process for greater degrees of order in which the action of reason through work (organization) provides happiness and the progress of Civilization appeal to me as the most essential there is to know in western Philosophy...

...in my way of putting it and stretching it, it places moral as the individual instinct of Ethics, the intuition for the need of the Estate and the realization of Man through the mind in the production of Work/Order in the most energy efficient possible manner...the codes of ethics are then nothing but the codes for energy efficiency in society in the process of evolution and constant adaptation through the work of reason...the opposition to the 2 law of TD...hmmm, or is it rather a tango with it ?
 
  • #35
Albuquerque said:
Spinoza´s pantheistic account of God as synonym of Nature, the unmoved mover and the True substance, as his conception of Ethics as the human drive process for greater degrees of order in which the action of reason through work (organization) provides happiness and the progress of Civilization appeal to me as the most essential there is to know in western Philosophy...

...in my way of putting it and stretching it, it places moral as the individual instinct of Ethics, the intuition for the need of the Estate and the realization of Man through the mind in the production of Work/Order in the most energy efficient possible manner...the codes of ethics are then nothing but the codes for energy efficiency in society in the process of evolution and constant adaptation through the work of reason...the opposition to the 2 law of TD...hmmm, or is it rather a tango with it ?

I don't have a favorite philosopher, I don't consider myself to be very good at it. But I read some Spinoza once in a close approximation of what he originally wrote.

What is nice is his attempt and trying to apply pure logic, or science, to derive ethics and a proof, or understanding, of God. Unfortunately, it's all very dated. If the Ethica would have been published now, he would end up in a home for the mentally ill.

(Probably, my favorite philosopher would be Nietzsche. Because he makes me laugh with his dark irony.)
 
<h2>1. Who is your favorite philosopher?</h2><p>As a scientist, I do not have a favorite philosopher. My focus is on empirical evidence and the scientific method, rather than philosophical theories.</p><h2>2. Why don't you have a favorite philosopher?</h2><p>As a scientist, my work is centered on observing and analyzing data, rather than philosophical concepts. I respect the contributions of various philosophers, but my field of study does not require a favorite philosopher.</p><h2>3. Don't you think it's important to have a favorite philosopher?</h2><p>While some individuals may have a favorite philosopher, it is not a necessity for all fields of study. As a scientist, my focus is on understanding the natural world through empirical evidence, rather than philosophical ideologies.</p><h2>4. How do you incorporate philosophical ideas into your work as a scientist?</h2><p>As a scientist, I may consider philosophical ideas when evaluating the implications of my research, but ultimately my work is guided by the scientific method and empirical evidence.</p><h2>5. Do you think science and philosophy are at odds with each other?</h2><p>No, I believe that science and philosophy can complement each other. While science focuses on empirical evidence and the natural world, philosophy can provide a framework for understanding the implications and ethical considerations of scientific advancements.</p>

1. Who is your favorite philosopher?

As a scientist, I do not have a favorite philosopher. My focus is on empirical evidence and the scientific method, rather than philosophical theories.

2. Why don't you have a favorite philosopher?

As a scientist, my work is centered on observing and analyzing data, rather than philosophical concepts. I respect the contributions of various philosophers, but my field of study does not require a favorite philosopher.

3. Don't you think it's important to have a favorite philosopher?

While some individuals may have a favorite philosopher, it is not a necessity for all fields of study. As a scientist, my focus is on understanding the natural world through empirical evidence, rather than philosophical ideologies.

4. How do you incorporate philosophical ideas into your work as a scientist?

As a scientist, I may consider philosophical ideas when evaluating the implications of my research, but ultimately my work is guided by the scientific method and empirical evidence.

5. Do you think science and philosophy are at odds with each other?

No, I believe that science and philosophy can complement each other. While science focuses on empirical evidence and the natural world, philosophy can provide a framework for understanding the implications and ethical considerations of scientific advancements.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
972
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top