Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Favorite Philosophers AND WHY

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 11:01:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, be sure to trash other people's favorites. It'll prolong the thread and maybe we can get some conversation about certain philosophers/works. I'll post a few of mine after there's been a few posts.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 11:04:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Leo Strauss - cause he dissected the true meaning behind philosophy up to Hobbes, and gives philosophical justification to neoconservatism :D
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 11:06:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 11:03:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You'll never guess mine. :)

I don't know who you've read, bro. Nietzsche or Wittgenstein? You'd love both these people.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 11:23:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Robert Nozick: Even though I disagree with certain aspects of his theory in "Anachy, State, and Utopia", he did quite a lot to bring libertarianism to some level of academic respect. His epistemology is also a force to be reckoned with and he was very good at deconstructing rival philosophies (utilitarianism and Rawl's account of justice).

Aristotle: Obviously. He invented logic for God's sake, his ethics are still wildly relevant (in my own opinion at least, the Golden Mean has always appealed to me as a personal guide of morality), and he was generally innovative in most aspects of philosophy.

Roderick Long: Even though he's still alive, I enjoy his work very much. He's done great work on the philosophical justification of anarchism, as well as responding to very common objections. His idea that equality is an important aspect of anarchism in addition to liberty is also a refreshing change from the strictly liberty-oriented work of most Austrian anarchists.

Like a year ago we did one of these and I think I put Plato and Marx. My how times have changed.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 11:29:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 11:06:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/1/2012 11:03:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You'll never guess mine. :)

I don't know who you've read, bro. Nietzsche or Wittgenstein? You'd love both these people.

Eh. Nietzsche partly, and I love doing readings of Wittgenstein when I'm doing Phil of Language stuff.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 12:15:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Myself, and the people on this forum.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 2:07:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel like my previous post wasn't exhaustive enough. Long, Aristotle, and Nozick are great but aren't sufficient in themselves as my all-time favs. So here's a longer list (the other three are of course included so just refer to my previous post for reasons), the top five.

John Searle: He's my primary influence as far as philosophy of mind goes currently. Pointing out the clear problems in eliminative and purely reductive materialist accounts of the mind (the obvious existence of mental states for eliminative and the fact that the actual ontological feelings and experiences of the mind can't be completely reduced without losing sight entirely of what we seek to explain for reductive) while steering clear of the problems with interactive dualism (causal interaction and the mind's relationship with brain damage). Still don't understand the difference between property dualism and biological naturalism though. Thomas Nagel could be added as an add-on for essentially the same reasons as Searle.

Lysander Spooner: He demolished social contract theory as far as I can tell. The idea that either acquiescence or a lack of active rebellion against the State effectively justifies it is incoherent and Spooner touches on that fact and more in 'No Treason'. I recommend anyone interested in political philosophy to pick it up. It brought a clearly written and innovative perspective to a theory which I think is largely philosophically dead. Besides his critique of the social contract though he was still an important activist of his day, writing on abolitionism and taking on the post office. Utlimate badarse.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 9:34:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Schopenhauer. I don't agree with how he thinks it best to minimize suffering, but I think his bleak outlook on life is kind of spot on.
yang.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:20:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:17:36 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Mine is obvious.

Just saw your profile again.

Order has been restored. Finally!
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:28:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wittgenstein, for revolutionising the entire field of analytical philosophy and logic.

Singer, for his revitalisation of preference utilitarianism into one of the most popular ethical theories from nothing, in a single book, which did not even focus on the justification too far. He did not need to write another twenty books as well to back up his works, because other people could do so for him, so he could easily move on to other issues, such as animal rights, and make massive strides there as well.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:01:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:28:27 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/2/2012 10:17:36 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Mine is obvious.

Marx?
Obviously
You a lesbian?

No
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:13:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:04:53 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
No

You might want to look over your profile then.

I am well aware of what I have noted there.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:14:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:28:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Wittgenstein, for revolutionising the entire field of analytical philosophy and logic.


Right on!

Singer, for his revitalisation of preference utilitarianism into one of the most popular ethical theories from nothing, in a single book, which did not even focus on the justification too far. He did not need to write another twenty books as well to back up his works, because other people could do so for him, so he could easily move on to other issues, such as animal rights, and make massive strides there as well.

There is some merit to Peter Singer. The problem is that he is most known for his later ramblings.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 3:54:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:14:37 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/2/2012 10:28:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Wittgenstein, for revolutionising the entire field of analytical philosophy and logic.


Right on!

Singer, for his revitalisation of preference utilitarianism into one of the most popular ethical theories from nothing, in a single book, which did not even focus on the justification too far. He did not need to write another twenty books as well to back up his works, because other people could do so for him, so he could easily move on to other issues, such as animal rights, and make massive strides there as well.

There is some merit to Peter Singer. The problem is that he is most known for his later ramblings.

Which time period specifically? He's mostly known for Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics (and going to Germany to basically create the consequentialist movement)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:34:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Zeno. I've personally thought of some of his paradoxes before I had heard of them.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:23:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I tend to compare them on thier absolute contributes. I have hard time between, Plato , Descarts, Humer, Kant, to (frege, Russal,).

If I was forced, Plato.
Why?

Really set the foundation. For what we would consider a well rounded, philosopher.

He masterd and made popular the philosophic dialectic,(the method reasoning Through skeptical inquiry) argument and refutation.

Most of what philosophers later think is fresh and new have already been argued for by Plato, You would be amazing if you go back after you have learned alot about (Progressive philosophers, as oppose to opinionate philosophy) and see what he had already had figured. And how many question he have answered all the way back then.

Don't fall into the Keplin paradox. I am ignorance to that philosophy and since its old, it must not be useful. (aka Paradox of ignorance.)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ayn Rand, her biologial and philosophical explinations of common actions and moral implications as well as the political aspect of her opposing statism put her at the top of my philosopher's list.
My legend begins in the 12th century
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:41:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:34:22 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Zeno. I've personally thought of some of his paradoxes before I had heard of them.

You mean the Zeno who wrote the paradoxes of the metaphysical philosophy of permanence and change? If so, I have an amusing anecdote for you :)
My legend begins in the 12th century
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:06:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 2:07:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I feel like my previous post wasn't exhaustive enough. Long, Aristotle, and Nozick are great but aren't sufficient in themselves as my all-time favs. So here's a longer list (the other three are of course included so just refer to my previous post for reasons), the top five.

John Searle: He's my primary influence as far as philosophy of mind goes currently. Pointing out the clear problems in eliminative and purely reductive materialist accounts of the mind (the obvious existence of mental states for eliminative and the fact that the actual ontological feelings and experiences of the mind can't be completely reduced without losing sight entirely of what we seek to explain for reductive) while steering clear of the problems with interactive dualism (causal interaction and the mind's relationship with brain damage). Still don't understand the difference between property dualism and biological naturalism though. Thomas Nagel could be added as an add-on for essentially the same reasons as Searle.

The Fool: I like his view, But I didn't learn it from him, I derived the notion which i called epistemological dualism. From the indubitabilty of the mind, and the impossibility of the positivist version of Verificationism.

The Fool: I am pretty sure property dualism is the same as Substance duelism which means that the mind can exist completly seperated from physical properties.

Decartes thinks its true because you could think of the mind without having to appeal to the Body or anything physical for that matter.
However this is only a difference in thought not in existence and the fact that there is interaction is a direct and Fatal blow.
But proves that you can't do it the other way around. Indicated the direction of reducibility. (He proves alot more. then that. Buts whether he meant to or not.)

The Fool: I could be wrong but the title 'biological naturalism' suggest, your laymans standard positivist physicallim view. Where the only thing that exist is SENSE DATA.

So the mind=Brain. And your feeling, thoughts, emotions, values, imagination, knowledge(which is in the form of ideas) believes or pretty much everything that matter to what it mean to be Human don't exist.

The Younger Wittegstien perspective where it is non-sense to say you are feeling pain, Because it not in the form of sense information that we can all be sure of. Infact it his he and Russal that Labeled Ideas as non-exist and as not True or false. This is now the most POP-science perspective that makes most of the non-theist perspective of DDO. Its a shame!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:17:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Oh yeah and we get to bash. Cause I could spend days on bashing. Intellegent bashing. Not Kleptin style. That is, I don't understand therefore "it bullsh!t" style. AKA something from nothing.
AKA 0->1

Hey he is considering himself a philosopher so he is open to bashing.

I consider myself a philosopher. So you could bash me? But give Good arguments. Not bold assertions but examples with proofs.

E.g. "Based from this, therefore that"'
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:20:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:06:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/2/2012 2:07:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:

John Searle: He's my primary influence as far as philosophy of mind goes currently. Pointing out the clear problems in eliminative and purely reductive materialist accounts of the mind (the obvious existence of mental states for eliminative and the fact that the actual ontological feelings and experiences of the mind can't be completely reduced without losing sight entirely of what we seek to explain for reductive) while steering clear of the problems with interactive dualism (causal interaction and the mind's relationship with brain damage). Still don't understand the difference between property dualism and biological naturalism though. Thomas Nagel could be added as an add-on for essentially the same reasons as Searle.

The Fool: I like his view, But I didn't learn it from him, I derived the notion which i called epistemological dualism. From the indubitabilty of the mind, and the impossibility of the positivist version of Verificationism.

The Fool: I am pretty sure property dualism is the same as Substance duelism which means that the mind can exist completly seperated from physical properties.

It's not. Property dualism is a view holding that the world is one substance, however within that one substance exist two properties (physical and mental which are irreducible to each other). Substance dualism would hold that there are two overarching materials in the world, one of which constitutes what we conceive to be the mind. While I'm not entirely sure of the difference between property dualism and Searle's biological naturalism, it's surely different from substance dualism. Under property dualism, the mind is causally dependent on physical properties.

Decartes thinks its true because you could think of the mind without having to appeal to the Body or anything physical for that matter.
However this is only a difference in thought not in existence and the fact that there is interaction is a direct and Fatal blow.
But proves that you can't do it the other way around. Indicated the direction of reducibility. (He proves alot more. then that. Buts whether he meant to or not.)

The Fool: I could be wrong but the title 'biological naturalism' suggest, your laymans standard positivist physicallim view. Where the only thing that exist is SENSE DATA.

I never understood what the name has to do with anything. I don't think it really says much about mind philosophy per se as opposed to an ontological or epistemic claim about the world. Searle uses the term to denote that the mind is a purely biological and natural property.

So the mind=Brain. And your feeling, thoughts, emotions, values, imagination, knowledge(which is in the form of ideas) believes or pretty much everything that matter to what it mean to be Human don't exist.

That's not the point. The point is that humans exist in a purely physical or natural sense, as opposed to having some sort of meta-natural or supernatural entity, irreducible to the material world. We still exist, just in a different way than has been historically conceived.

The Younger Wittegstien perspective where it is non-sense to say you are feeling pain, Because it not in the form of sense information that we can all be sure of. Infact it his he and Russal that Labeled Ideas as non-exist and as not True or false. This is now the most POP-science perspective that makes most of the non-theist perspective of DDO. Its a shame!

You need to learn to spell.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
FlameofPrometheus
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A bit new to the site
but not new to philosophy.
Favorite philosophers:
Ayn Rand (I actually accept objectivism)
john Locke
Aristotle
Lil B
Pierre Joseph proud hon (only his views on minimalist governments)
Leonard Peikoff ( Ayn Rand's Intellectual inheritor)

People I dislike, highly
Immanuel Kant
John Rawls (One of his theories is an absolute evil)
Peter Singer
Marx

Now time for some fantastic quotes

"America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."
Ayn Rand

A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government—the state—has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens.
Ayn Rand

"All these.... on my..... cause I look like Jesus"
Lil B
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:52:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:41:12 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:34:22 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Zeno. I've personally thought of some of his paradoxes before I had heard of them.

You mean the Zeno who wrote the paradoxes of the metaphysical philosophy of permanence and change? If so, I have an amusing anecdote for you :)

What anecdote?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:08:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:43:52 PM, FlameofPrometheus wrote:
A bit new to the site
but not new to philosophy.
Favorite philosophers:
Ayn Rand (I actually accept objectivism)

Thoughts on Roy Child's argument that Objectivism entails anarchism?

john Locke

What aspects of his philosophy attract you to him?

Aristotle

No disagreement here.

Lil B

Who?

Pierre Joseph proud hon (only his views on minimalist governments)

He was an anarchist actually and vehemently anti-capitalist at that (which I'm assuming you are).

Leonard Peikoff ( Ayn Rand's Intellectual inheritor)

I guess that follows from being a Randroid. I kid of course.

People I dislike, highly
Immanuel Kant

Y U no like Kant?

John Rawls (One of his theories is an absolute evil)

I assume, being a fan of Rand and Locke that you're no friend of liberal politics. Would that be your disagreement with him?

Peter Singer

He's an interesting moral philosopher. What theories of his do you reject?

Marx

Makes sense as a fan of Rand and Locke again. However, it's interesting to me that Marx drew a lot of his economics (particularly the LTV) directly from Adam Smith. Just a little tidbit.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:29:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 11:24:35 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Hobbes

forgot to include "why" - basically because he is so consistent and his epistemology and conclusions make perfect sense to me - I think he's absolutely correct to say that all "authority" is "conventional" - but at the same time, to say it is necessary.