Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Worst Philosophers

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 1:30:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There have been numerous threads about who the best philosophers were or who our favorite ones are. The purpose of this thread is to focus more on the worst ones. Here's my selection:

1) Descartes- I don't deny that he was incredibly influential, I just think the whole of his philosophy was rubbish and dishonest. First, the cogito was more or less logically incoherent. Descartes jumps from applying an incredibly strict epistemic standard to each of his beliefs and then seemingly forgets that by admitting his self to exist. But if an evil demon can trick you into thinking the outside world exists, why not also lend that it can deceive your thought process?

But it's not until after this that he re-establishes the existence of the external world and the reliability of his senses. For this task he introduces the ontological argument to justify the existence of an all good God. And obviously an all good God wouldn't trick him like an evil demon. But the argument itself is harmless (even if I deny its soundness). It's the fact that Descartes ties together the looming errors in his philosophy simply by positing God. Nothing against philospohizing about God per se, I actually think Aquinas is alright, it's just so obvious he only used it as a crutch to cover for his shltty philosophy.

inb4 Fool attacks. Or did he leave?

2) William James- I hate him mostly for introducing the scourge of pragmatism into philosophical thought. Almost the whole of his epistemology drew simply on how it feels to believe certain things, see pragmatic theory of truth. Isn't that what philosophy is supposed to stop? Philosophy is about looking for what is real and actual, truth. Now obviously there are a good number of philosophers who deny the existence of truth, but wrapping up whatever makes us feel good as *actual* truth is certainly an unjustified leap to take. Furthermore, his ethics can be refuted by the simple fact that descriptive ethics =/= normative ethics. Also, I'll note that not everything James and the pragmatists argued for is wrong imo. The will to believe doctrine can be saved possibly, that's why James is only #2.

These are the two that I think are the worst of the worst, though many people would naturally disagree. Close but close enough were Sam Harris, Jeremy Bentham, Hobbes, and Plato.

Also inb4 DDO having a hidden pro-Plato crowd and/or everyone saying Karl Marx.
: 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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:33:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
zOmg the Forms r teh kooliest filosofi evar! PlAto ftW.
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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:33:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 1:30:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
1) Descartes- I don't deny that he was incredibly influential

mmmm...

I think Today he's more of a Popularizer of philosophical thinking.. he's accessible and such..

But nothing he said was really new, nor, despite it being accessible, was it well said, or well defended...

I'm not sure of his place of Influence in the History of philosophy... as he May very well have Re-invigorated people's doing philosophy...

But I don't really think to many people would cite him as a substantial influence in their ideas.

2) William James- I hate him mostly for introducing the scourge of pragmatism into philosophical thought. Almost the whole of his epistemology drew simply on how it feels to believe certain things, see pragmatic theory of truth. Isn't that what philosophy is supposed to stop? Philosophy is about looking for what is real and actual, truth. Now obviously there are a good number of philosophers who deny the existence of truth, but wrapping up whatever makes us feel good as *actual* truth is certainly an unjustified leap to take.

It would be better and less confusing if he'd just abandoned the term "truth" instead of redefining it away from the popular standard.

Also, though I think that it's tough to wholly get away from the idea that it's best to believe/act upon what makes you feel good...
It's a bit of a Self-deception if you actually think of it that way, and is implausible for those who aren't insane...
Also, even if you can kind of dupe yourself... it might prove better in the long run not to... For one you may some day become Un-duped.. For two, if it feels better to believe you're invincible you might get mangled and feel bad when you get hit by a truck. Beliefs whose biggest merit is that they make you feel good wouldn't necessarily be better than others which better cohere with the world... For they might make you act in ways out of sync with everything else... Causing Feeling-bad'edness.

These are the two that I think are the worst of the worst, though many people would naturally disagree. Close but close enough were Sam Harris, Jeremy Bentham, Hobbes, and Plato.

I'm not really too familiar with Bentham and hobbes.. but Harris I watched a video where he "explained" his understanding of Ethics... and I couldn't understand how he's considered a philosopher.

And Plato wins spot #1 for being all-kinds of crazy
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:42:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not really a fan of Hegel, to be honest.
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:47:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Kant,...hated Kant from the first time ever hearing of him in Mestari's arguments for the ethics of secession.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:52:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've got to agree with the OP regarding William James: I've never seen any reason to find him a good philosopher. I also have a few problems with some modern philosopher's attempts at theology (especially rebuttals to the omnipotence paradox arguments). But mostly it is certain aspects of the philosophy of a philosopher, rather than anything specific, such as Nietzsche's approach to ethics were at most times dishonest rather than philosophically sound.
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...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:57:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:47:51 AM, 000ike wrote:
Kant,...hated Kant from the first time ever hearing of him in Mestari's arguments for the ethics of secession.

How much of Kant have you read?
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:06:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:57:52 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:47:51 AM, 000ike wrote:
Kant,...hated Kant from the first time ever hearing of him in Mestari's arguments for the ethics of secession.

How much of Kant have you read?

Okay, nothing really by him, but I have tried to look into his philosophy from other sources and understand their justification (especially for my debate with CP on the categorical imperative),...and then seeing that in conjunction with constant reference to him in rebuke to the majority of my beliefs, I see reason to dislike him as a philosopher.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:07:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 10:06:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:57:52 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:47:51 AM, 000ike wrote:
Kant,...hated Kant from the first time ever hearing of him in Mestari's arguments for the ethics of secession.

How much of Kant have you read?

Okay, nothing really by him, but I have tried to look into his philosophy from other sources and understand their justification (especially for my debate with CP on the categorical imperative),...and then seeing that in conjunction with constant reference to him in rebuke to the majority of my beliefs, I see reason to dislike him as a philosopher.

Okay. Just curious.
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
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:15:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:42:41 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not really a fan of Hegel, to be honest.

There's really too much to Hegel to shrug him off like that. I would say Hobbes is up there, as is Ayn Rand.

Simply "being wrong" wouldn't put them up there for me since I think most philosophy is wrong.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:17:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 10:07:48 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/6/2012 10:06:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:57:52 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:47:51 AM, 000ike wrote:
Kant,...hated Kant from the first time ever hearing of him in Mestari's arguments for the ethics of secession.

How much of Kant have you read?

Okay, nothing really by him, but I have tried to look into his philosophy from other sources and understand their justification (especially for my debate with CP on the categorical imperative),...and then seeing that in conjunction with constant reference to him in rebuke to the majority of my beliefs, I see reason to dislike him as a philosopher.

Okay. Just curious.

Yeah, there's an enormous amount to Kant outside the CI. I came into an 19th century philosophy course disliking Kant but after reading him he's got so much to offer than you just can't hate him after being exposed to his thought process and ideas.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:23:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 10:15:36 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:42:41 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not really a fan of Hegel, to be honest.

There's really too much to Hegel to shrug him off like that. I would say Hobbes is up there, as is Ayn Rand.

Simply "being wrong" wouldn't put them up there for me since I think most philosophy is wrong.

I wasn't really saying he was one of the worst, I was just saying there are quite a few aspects of his philosophy I'm not really on.
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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:00:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:52:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Nietzsche's approach to ethics were at most times dishonest rather than philosophically sound.

How do you mean? o.O
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:05:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 10:17:48 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/6/2012 10:07:48 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/6/2012 10:06:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:57:52 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:47:51 AM, 000ike wrote:
Kant,...hated Kant from the first time ever hearing of him in Mestari's arguments for the ethics of secession.

How much of Kant have you read?

Okay, nothing really by him, but I have tried to look into his philosophy from other sources and understand their justification (especially for my debate with CP on the categorical imperative),...and then seeing that in conjunction with constant reference to him in rebuke to the majority of my beliefs, I see reason to dislike him as a philosopher.

Okay. Just curious.

Yeah, there's an enormous amount to Kant outside the CI. I came into an 19th century philosophy course disliking Kant but after reading him he's got so much to offer than you just can't hate him after being exposed to his thought process and ideas.

This. See his metaphysics and epistemology before you shrug him off. I don't really think it's possible to overrate him.
: 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.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 12:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ayn Rand
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 12:50:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 12:28:56 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
Ayn Rand

http://myfacewhen.com...
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
10/6/2012 2:26:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:00:55 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/6/2012 9:52:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Nietzsche's approach to ethics were at most times dishonest rather than philosophically sound.

How do you mean? o.O

Dishonest may be a strong word, but he was very much rejecting things for the sake of rejecting them at many points, to an extent that many of his points are very thinly veiled conjecture, rather than thorough argumentation or heavily justified.
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...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 2:34:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 12:11:00 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has said "Aristotle" yet.

Invented logic. Nuff said.
: 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.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 2:35:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 1:30:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
There have been numerous threads about who the best philosophers were or who our favorite ones are. The purpose of this thread is to focus more on the worst ones. Here's my selection:

1) Descartes- I don't deny that he was incredibly influential, I just think the whole of his philosophy was rubbish and dishonest. First, the cogito was more or less logically incoherent. Descartes jumps from applying an incredibly strict epistemic standard to each of his beliefs and then seemingly forgets that by admitting his self to exist. But if an evil demon can trick you into thinking the outside world exists, why not also lend that it can deceive your thought process?

I'd have to say that's an invalid argument because you are missing the point of his reduction all the way to the single axiom of existence. He doesn't forget his strict epistemic standards in arriving at Cogito Ergo Sum at all, even if you are deceived you are conscious of something and therefore, even by the strict epistemic standards applied, you know that you exist. What you think doesn't matter, it's the fact that you think that allows the deductive conclusion of self existence. There is nothing logically incoherent about the argument he made.

But it's not until after this that he re-establishes the existence of the external world and the reliability of his senses. For this task he introduces the ontological argument to justify the existence of an all good God. And obviously an all good God wouldn't trick him like an evil demon. But the argument itself is harmless (even if I deny its soundness). It's the fact that Descartes ties together the looming errors in his philosophy simply by positing God. Nothing against philospohizing about God per se, I actually think Aquinas is alright, it's just so obvious he only used it as a crutch to cover for his shltty philosophy.

Nonsense. Descartes was a genius who achieved astounding insights into philosophy and mathematics. There are good reasons that the consensus opinion for four hundred years has been that he is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and is considered the father of modern philosophy. The fact that you don't understand his meditations certainly doesn't mean his philosophy is sh!tty.

inb4 Fool attacks. Or did he leave?

2) William James- I hate him mostly for introducing the scourge of pragmatism into philosophical thought. Almost the whole of his epistemology drew simply on how it feels to believe certain things, see pragmatic theory of truth. Isn't that what philosophy is supposed to stop? Philosophy is about looking for what is real and actual, truth. Now obviously there are a good number of philosophers who deny the existence of truth, but wrapping up whatever makes us feel good as *actual* truth is certainly an unjustified leap to take. Furthermore, his ethics can be refuted by the simple fact that descriptive ethics =/= normative ethics. Also, I'll note that not everything James and the pragmatists argued for is wrong imo. The will to believe doctrine can be saved possibly, that's why James is only #2.

Egads, apparently you don't understand Pragmatism either, you must be on drugs.

These are the two that I think are the worst of the worst, though many people would naturally disagree. Close but close enough were Sam Harris, Jeremy Bentham, Hobbes, and Plato.

Never been a fan of Bentham, Sam Harris isn't a philosopher by any stretch of the imagination, he's a hack writer playing to a dumbed down and angry post 911 audience...and I'm thinking you are on some really great drugs if you think Hobbes and Plato are bad philosophers.

Also inb4 DDO having a hidden pro-Plato crowd and/or everyone saying Karl Marx.

I'm thinking I don't know what inb4 means or something, not sure what this sentence means.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 2:48:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 2:35:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/6/2012 1:30:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
There have been numerous threads about who the best philosophers were or who our favorite ones are. The purpose of this thread is to focus more on the worst ones. Here's my selection:

1) Descartes- I don't deny that he was incredibly influential, I just think the whole of his philosophy was rubbish and dishonest. First, the cogito was more or less logically incoherent. Descartes jumps from applying an incredibly strict epistemic standard to each of his beliefs and then seemingly forgets that by admitting his self to exist. But if an evil demon can trick you into thinking the outside world exists, why not also lend that it can deceive your thought process?

I'd have to say that's an invalid argument because you are missing the point of his reduction all the way to the single axiom of existence. He doesn't forget his strict epistemic standards in arriving at Cogito Ergo Sum at all, even if you are deceived you are conscious of something and therefore, even by the strict epistemic standards applied, you know that you exist. What you think doesn't matter, it's the fact that you think that allows the deductive conclusion of self existence. There is nothing logically incoherent about the argument he made.

You're missing what I said. I said there's no reason to think that we're not simply mistaken in thinking that reflection necessitates existence. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that a demon is tricking us into thinking so, or at least as likely as a demon tricking us about anything else.

But it's not until after this that he re-establishes the existence of the external world and the reliability of his senses. For this task he introduces the ontological argument to justify the existence of an all good God. And obviously an all good God wouldn't trick him like an evil demon. But the argument itself is harmless (even if I deny its soundness). It's the fact that Descartes ties together the looming errors in his philosophy simply by positing God. Nothing against philospohizing about God per se, I actually think Aquinas is alright, it's just so obvious he only used it as a crutch to cover for his shltty philosophy.

Nonsense. Descartes was a genius who achieved astounding insights into philosophy and mathematics. There are good reasons that the consensus opinion for four hundred years has been that he is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and is considered the father of modern philosophy. The fact that you don't understand his meditations certainly doesn't mean his philosophy is sh!tty.

I understand them, they just really are shltty. And furthermore, it doesn't matter what consensus opinion ever was. As populum much? Furthermore you didn't respond to my point that he simply uses God to fill in the holes in his philosophy.

inb4 Fool attacks. Or did he leave?

2) William James- I hate him mostly for introducing the scourge of pragmatism into philosophical thought. Almost the whole of his epistemology drew simply on how it feels to believe certain things, see pragmatic theory of truth. Isn't that what philosophy is supposed to stop? Philosophy is about looking for what is real and actual, truth. Now obviously there are a good number of philosophers who deny the existence of truth, but wrapping up whatever makes us feel good as *actual* truth is certainly an unjustified leap to take. Furthermore, his ethics can be refuted by the simple fact that descriptive ethics =/= normative ethics. Also, I'll note that not everything James and the pragmatists argued for is wrong imo. The will to believe doctrine can be saved possibly, that's why James is only #2.

Egads, apparently you don't understand Pragmatism either, you must be on drugs.

Hurr durr you don't agree with me, therefore you're on drugs. Sweet gawd that logic's flawless.

These are the two that I think are the worst of the worst, though many people would naturally disagree. Close but close enough were Sam Harris, Jeremy Bentham, Hobbes, and Plato.

Never been a fan of Bentham, Sam Harris isn't a philosopher by any stretch of the imagination, he's a hack writer playing to a dumbed down and angry post 911 audience...and I'm thinking you are on some really great drugs if you think Hobbes and Plato are bad philosophers.

Good arguments.

Also inb4 DDO having a hidden pro-Plato crowd and/or everyone saying Karl Marx.

I'm thinking I don't know what inb4 means or something, not sure what this sentence means.

Oh ma gawd you must be on drugs!
: 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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 2:58:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 2:35:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also inb4 DDO having a hidden pro-Plato crowd and/or everyone saying Karl Marx.

I'm thinking I don't know what inb4 means or something, not sure what this sentence means.

"Inb4" generally indicates a prediction.

What he's saying is he thinks that people will come in defending Plato/say Karl Marx was the worst philosopher.

Inb4 also has an implied dismissal to it, too. Like, you aren't taking the thing that you think will happen as being valid or serious.
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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:31:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 2:26:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Dishonest may be a strong word, but he was very much rejecting things for the sake of rejecting them at many points, to an extent that many of his points are very thinly veiled conjecture, rather than thorough argumentation or heavily justified.

Often his dismissals are short or unexplained.. and they require the context of his general thought to understand.

And, yes.. he often isn't so straightforward or systematic in presenting arguments for his manner of thinking...
But Morality isn't objective... so arguing for a way of doing things is Not a matter of logically proving that it's what should be.. but convincing through either evoking empathetic understanding, or presenting a different way of looking at something.
His using an endless slew of stories and aphorisms ends up demonstrating his points better than a simplistic systematic construal
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:33:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just to ask, what would you (ahem-OMG Justin Bierber, DN, etc.) say in regards to Rousseau's views in regards to society and communion??
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:45:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 2:34:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/6/2012 12:11:00 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has said "Aristotle" yet.

Invented logic. Nuff said.

Kinda like how Newton invented gravity, right?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:03:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:45:48 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 10/6/2012 2:34:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/6/2012 12:11:00 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has said "Aristotle" yet.

Invented logic. Nuff said.

Kinda like how Newton invented gravity, right?

Obviously not. He's just the first person to clearly exposit the laws of logic and all that and was the first person to actually systemize the study of them. Saying he's the worst philosopher is like saying Newton was the worst scientist. He was wrong on a lot but he's far from the worst.
: 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.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:21:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:45:48 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 10/6/2012 2:34:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/6/2012 12:11:00 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has said "Aristotle" yet.

Invented logic. Nuff said.

Kinda like how Newton invented gravity, right?

I thought that was Edison...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:22:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From the summaries of Ayn Rand that I've read, she is absolutely crazy.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:29:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well this doesn't really count but Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both smart philosophers whose philosophies have been chronically abused and have indirectly resulted in pain and suffering (In Ayn Rand's case, VERY indirectly through the wave of free market authoritarian regimes in Latin America). Of course neither of them are really directly responsible for what happened so it wouldn't make sense to call them 'bad' philosophers.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:33:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 10:29:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Well this doesn't really count but Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both smart philosophers whose philosophies have been chronically abused and have indirectly resulted in pain and suffering (In Ayn Rand's case, VERY indirectly through the wave of free market authoritarian regimes in Latin America). Of course neither of them are really directly responsible for what happened so it wouldn't make sense to call them 'bad' philosophers.

I sort of feel the same. I think both of them were highly committed to creating a comprehensive philosophy and think they were genuine about it (don't listen to Wnope when he says she was parodying Marxism). People who think Marx was an authoritarian d-bag or who think Rand was a selfish (in the vulgar sense, not the sense she used it in) prick clearly haven't read anything they actually wrote.
: 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.