- #31
Jimmy Snyder
- 1,122
- 21
Parmenides is OK, but that's just one man's opinion. Zeno is hard to approach.fashizzle said:
Who is your favorite philosopher?
- Thread starter jduster
- Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The forum discussion centers on participants' favorite philosophers, highlighting figures such as David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Baruch Spinoza. Participants express preferences for late Wittgenstein's shift from metaphysics to ethics, comparing his influence to that of Socrates. The conversation also touches on the significance of Eastern philosophy, particularly Lao Tzu's "Tao Te Ching," and critiques the omission of notable philosophers like René Descartes and Ayn Rand from the discussion. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the diverse philosophical perspectives and the importance of reasoning behind philosophical preferences.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of Analytic vs. Continental philosophy
- Familiarity with key philosophical texts such as "Tao Te Ching" and "Ethica"
- Knowledge of philosophical methods like Reductio ad absurdum
- Awareness of major philosophers and their contributions, including Socrates, Wittgenstein, and Spinoza
- Research the impact of late Wittgenstein on Analytic philosophy
- Explore the philosophical implications of Lao Tzu's "Tao Te Ching"
- Study Spinoza's pantheism and its relevance to modern ethics
- Investigate the differences between Rationalism and Empiricism in philosophy
Philosophy students, educators, and enthusiasts interested in exploring diverse philosophical perspectives and understanding the historical context of influential thinkers.
- #32
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
- 4,426
- 327
The Dude
- #33
DrClapeyron
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
Albuquerque
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 ?
...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
MarcoD
Albuquerque said:
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.)
- #36
Albuquerque
My own odd interpretation of the use of Ethics and moral good is always related with the integration of progressive sets of systems and categories of interest and the amount of effort, energy efficiency, work, implied in the functional task process towards an end whatever that end might be as long as it is natural (genuine)...so I have a relative to scope approach interpretation of its use, regarding the depth of field concerning systemically either the species among other species, or the social group to which we want apply a moral judgement...and yet my view still tends like Spinoza´s towards a necessary and deterministic approach to the problem in terms of logical and rational justification...that is to say, that moral and ethics cannot be justified or circularly reasoned with more moral and ethics but they need something out of their own scope to ground themselves as an say, valid "operating system" regarding behaviour and conduct...my notion of "good" in here is thus further reducible to the notion of optimal input in terms of the energy efficiency or the amount of work one can spare to accomplish a task which is seen as necessary for the species or the said group at hand in its natural causal progression in the world...and that´s how I look at the problem shocking as it may seam...a sort of neo-Darwinistic stance concerning the need for cooperation among social species regarding the accomplishment of complex tasks that require increasing degrees of consensus in order to be carried about and in which trust is a central factor...
Last edited by a moderator:
- #37
MarcoD
I assume you don't have kids?
- #38
e^(i Pi)+1=0
- 246
- 1
Lao Tzu and Alan Watts
- #39
ryan.j
Gold Member
- 8
- 0
No Rand or Camus?!
Nothing shy of an affront.
Nothing shy of an affront.
- #40
920118
- 31
- 0
ryan.j said:
Including Rand or Camus in this poll would be like including the pope in a poll on everyones favourite scientists...
My favourite is other.
- #41
moogull
- 84
- 0
Where's Descartes!
- #42
eggshell
- 1
- 0
hume is a badass, also a big fan of epicurus. if you've read hume's "enquiry concerning human understanding" then i highly recommend reading carl jung; you really only have to read the first chapter to understand the relationship between the two.
not surprised to see the rationalist school of thought held in such high esteem on this forum though, i can't help but laugh.
not surprised to see the rationalist school of thought held in such high esteem on this forum though, i can't help but laugh.
- #43
sigurdW
- 26
- 0
fashizzle said:
A good choice!
- #44
sigurdW
- 26
- 0
Good Question!moogull said:
- #45
malik333
socrates is my favourite philosopher.
- #46
Gravy
Diogenes the Cynic... Not for his contributions to philosophy, but because he was visibly indifferent to wealth, and evidently carried around a lamp during the day time. Just imagine having a beer (or five) with the guy while showing him a CGI-heavy documentary on dinosaurs! ... He'd be hilarious, in my mind.
Favourite philosopher with regards to his philosophical contributions? .. Late Wittgenstein and his private language argument.
Favourite philosopher with regards to his philosophical contributions? .. Late Wittgenstein and his private language argument.
- #47
epenguin
Science Advisor
- 3,637
- 1,013
e^(i Pi)+1=0 said:
I totally reject Alan Watts for reasons exactly opposite to the ones you give.
- #48
Dadface
- 2,489
- 105
The Mekon and Lord Snooty and his pals.