# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Vote for your favourite philosopher!

## Bii

Seriously superficial thread here, but it's interesting that for a philosophy section we don't talk about philosophers very much. As I'm starting the thread I get to pick the philosopher's so if you don't like any of them...well, start your own thread! 

All Western philosophers because I don't know enough (yet) about Eastern philosophers.

My personal fave has to be Bertrand Russell. His philosophy is very accessible, he writes well, expresses his ideas well, and has just the right blend of logic and pragmatism to make perfect sense to me. Just reading "The Problems of Philosophy" and it's very enlightening. When I've fully digested it I hope to add a bit more to the Knowledge v Belief thread as he has some very interesting views on that.

So, which is your favourite philosopher, and why?

----------


## Taliesin

Plato is old, pessimistic about democracy and viewed Sparta as quite a model society. We don't support his ideas too. 
Descartes is interesting, at least to a mathematician. However, We don't like extreme rationalism.
Kant- urghhhh. Essential german philosophy. German is a language of heavy words. We're a bit afraid of Kant. 
We don't know almost anything at all about Russell, sadly. 
And for Sartre - haven't read him, but on some real-life matters he misunderstood some stuff very hardly - no repressions in Soviet Union for they are impossible in a socialist state, our donkey. We prefer Camus to him.
So yes, we have eliminated all of them. 
However, where are pre-Socratics? Socrates? Aristotle? Spinoza? Locke? Hume? Berkeley? Kierkegaard? Camus? Freud? Wittgenstein? There are more options you can enter, you know so why so few of them?

----------


## Virgil

Yeah, where's Aristotle?

----------


## Bii

> As I'm starting the thread I get to pick the philosopher's so if you don't like any of them...well, start your own thread!


There's your answer!

Taliesin - you need to read Russell. He is a most excellent philosopher.

----------


## Lote-Tree

You know very few philosophers.... :-(

Where Socrates?

----------


## Bii

> You know very few philosophers.... :-(


I'm offended you think so little of me. 

Actually I'm not sure I 'know' any philosophers, on the basis that most of them are dead. For the purpose of a poll you can only have a maximum of 10. I opted for 5. You may ask why but does it matter? Why that 5 and not a different 5? Let's face it, I could have posted a completely different list and still no doubt someone would be unhappy with that.




> Where Socrates?


Socrates, last time I checked, was dead. Other than that, he didn't make the list.

----------


## Nossa

> I'm offended you think so little of me. 
> 
> Actually I'm not sure I 'know' any philosophers, on the basis that most of them are dead. For the purpose of a poll you can only have a maximum of 10. I opted for 5. You may ask why but does it matter? Why that 5 and not a different 5? Let's face it, I could have posted a completely different list and still no doubt someone would be unhappy with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Socrates, last time I checked, was dead. Other than that, he didn't make the list.


I don't quite get the 'Socrates was dead' part...Who's alive in your list anyways?!
And to solve it, you could have simply just asked the question without making a poll...You can't just limit 'our' choices according to whom you see as important. This way, you're asking us to either agree or disagree on your list, or else, make our own threads!
Oh and one more thing...to 'know' a philosophy or a philosopher..is to know thier ideas and what they stood for...not to know them 'personally'...don't take it with its literal meaning

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I'm offended you think so little of me.


Sorry I did not mean to offend you. 
I take back that sentence. 

What I meat to say is that there is a long list of philosophers why pick so few?

Sorry :-(

And nay I don't think very little of you at all. I think highly of you.

----------


## hyperborean

I voted for Sartre.

----------


## kiobe

Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher (born at Abdera in Thrace around 460 BC).[1][2] Democritus was a student of Leucippus and co-originator of the belief that all matter is made up of various imperishable, indivisible elements which he called atoma (sg. atomon) or "indivisible units", from which we get the English word atom. It is virtually impossible to tell which of these ideas were unique to Democritus and which are attributable to Leucippus.

----------


## Bii

> I don't quite get the 'Socrates was dead' part...Who's alive in your list anyways?!





> Oh and one more thing...to 'know' a philosophy or a philosopher..is to know thier ideas and what they stood for...not to know them 'personally'...don't take it with its literal meaning


I was being literal. It was a tongue in cheek response.




> You can't just limit 'our' choices according to whom you see as important.This way, you're asking us to either agree or disagree on your list, or else, make our own threads!


Actually I can, and as you can see, I did.

I never said I thought any of them were important. It was a random selection. Glad to see it's caused so much debate already.

----------


## Nossa

> I was being literal. It was a tongue in cheek response.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I can, and as you can see, I did.
> 
> I never said I thought any of them were important. It was a random selection. Glad to see it's caused so much debate already.


Well...I still think you shouldn't have limited them...lol
And yeah, we debate about everything...even if the thread is about philosophy and we're talking about a whole different thing :FRlol:

----------


## dramasnot6

My favorite out of the list...it's hard, because I appreciate aspects of several of their philosophies.I have always been most take by Sartre I suppose...

----------


## Bii

> Sorry I did not mean to offend you. 
> I take back that sentence. 
> 
> What I meat to say is that there is a long list of philosophers why pick so few?
> 
> Sorry :-(
> 
> And nay I don't think very little of you at all. I think highly of you.


No offence taken, honestly, it was a bit tongue in cheek (as is the whole thread). My apologies & thank you for your kind words.

----------


## Turk

> Plato is old, pessimistic about democracy and viewed Sparta as quite a model society.


So what if he's pessimistic about democracy. Today it's clear democracy is not good.

I also think this is very little list for vote. I also don't think Russell is a philosopher in a way, although he wrote books about philosophical subjects.

My vote would go to Mawlana Jalal-ad Din Rumi.

----------


## XY&Z

Just not realistic for one person to know all of them. And even they are philosophers, they were talking about different stuff. They are all dead right now, and we need a good philosophical view of current situation in the world. No one is ever going to be able to read everything from every single known philosopher. How can you pick and choose from limited offer? And is it really possible to put them down, one by one? And by whose criteria?

----------


## Jean-Baptiste

Hurray for Kant! He's my hero of thought. He saved us all from that nasty David Hume, and reestablished the possibility of causality with a little thing we like to call synthetic a priori judgments, or non-experiential judgments of amplification. Wasn't that a nice thing for him to do? 




> Just not realistic for one person to know all of them. And even they are philosophers, they were talking about different stuff. They are all dead right now, and we need a good philosophical view of current situation in the world. No one is ever going to be able to read everything from every single known philosopher. How can you pick and choose from limited offer? And is it really possible to put them down, one by one? And by whose criteria?


I suppose it's not realistic for one person to know every philosopher ever, but there certainly are some major ones, and for a student of philosophy it should not be too much to expect to know a great deal about a great many of them. In any case, many philosophers that we study have been dealing with a very few fundamental questions about the nature of things and what ought to be, so once you know what the questions are, it's not a big step to finding out what each philosopher contributed to the discussion. As for a philosophical view of the current situation, I think we can easily dust of a number of philosophical views of past situations to apply. Do you really think that human nature has changed so drastically that the past cannot possibly answer for us now? 

Anyway, yes, Kant is the man. He essentially established a philosophical basis for Faith (not as the merely religious concept, but as the functional basis of existence and knowledge.)

----------


## NikolaiI

Haha you are awesome Hyperborean.

I think Descartes my favourite.

----------


## XY&Z

> I suppose it's not realistic for one person to know every philosopher ever,


I meant their work, not them personally.





> and for a student of philosophy it should not be too much to expect to know a great deal about a great many of them.


Do you really think that one student from New York and one from Madrid have same curriculum? And what do you and what can you know about one philosopher? The way he likes to take his tea in the afternoon? Its not really important to know about them (and how much we can rely on such information) but more about their work. 





> In any case, many philosophers that we study have been dealing with a very few fundamental questions about the nature of things and what ought to be, so once you know what the questions are, it's not a big step to finding out what each philosopher contributed to the discussion.


Do you ever feel that their thoughts are repeating? You know; Great Minds Think Alike ?




> As for a philosophical view of the current situation, I think we can easily dust of a number of philosophical views of past situations to apply. Do you really think that human nature has changed so drastically that the past cannot possibly answer for us now?


Unfortunately Ive lost fate in human kind. So much evil in such civilized world. What a shame. Maybe we could seek answer in old books using old intelligence but who would listen? Even global warming is not considered seriously.

I goggled essential thinkers and result shows book where 100 of them are listed. Why 100? Simply because you cannot take just 5 or 6 of them for such a long period of time as is human existence.

----------


## Unbeliever

> My personal fave has to be Bertrand Russell.


I, too, am very fond of Russell! I felt sorry when I read that, after years of working on a book about mathematics with Whitehead, Goedel came along and made the whole thing moot. But Russell was good enough to admit when he was wrong.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Unfortunately Ive lost fate in human kind. So much evil in such civilized world. What a shame. Maybe we could seek answer in old books using old intelligence but who would listen? Even global warming is not considered seriously.


So much evil..do you know that Walt Whitman thought that civilization was the cause of evil? That man left alone should be natural and good, but civilization corrupts him?

Lots of evil, true, but who knows exactly how much? Let's just hope it gets better.

One reason I love Descartes so much is just the way he writes. I mean, even look at just the first sentence of his meditations on philosophy - it's so honest! I love it, and for me it illustrates the connection between literature and philosophy. Philosophy is nothing if it is not great literature. So much of it is rhetoric, and even poetry, I think it does better to acknowledge the connection, and consider it a good thing. Philosophy is good if it is beautiful phrases, beautiful paragraphs, and ones that have connected arguments, and can keep it interesting, etc. etc. It is the reason I consider Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche philosophers.

----------


## linz

We are our own best Philosopher  :Smile:

----------


## Domer121

> Yeah, where's Aristotle?


I agree!! My vote would have to be for Aristotle..

----------


## XY&Z

> do you know that Walt Whitman thought that civilization was the cause of evil? That man left alone should be natural and good, but civilization corrupts him?


Honestly, I didnt know that was his theory. But I find it valid. 
I just love his Song 
(http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/logr/log_026.html) 





> Lots of evil, true, but who knows exactly how much? Let's just hope it gets better.


Amen.  :Smile: 

Man is gifted with reason; he is life being aware of itself. 
Erich Fromm

Maybe there is a key. Intelligence and civilization are recipes for final disaster of the world known to us. We are not first or least, but can we make a difference? Just because we know.

----------


## quasimodo1

If you all are going to vote your favorite philosopher, then you must add more of them to your list or create a "write me in" option. quasimodo1

----------


## Midas

Without exception, my favourite is one that is not particularly recognised as a philosopher, yet his down to earth philosophy, and profound understanding of life, and human nature, oozes from almost every line of his prolific writings.

He entertains while he teaches.

His name: William Shakesepeare.

----------


## Ludmila607

1-Pascal he was a mistic who experience thoughts on its most meaningful way.He can express beautifully talking about maths, Gods nature, human signs and philosophical questions.Lonely and forgotten , died in misery.
2-Spinoza is another one wich live and writing can be very interisting.He wondered about human nature, proposites, relation to a God creator...find unity at plurallity.¨He is enjoyable to read.
3-Nietszche is great for his style.He dares to say everything to be offending and unreasonable honest.He contructs a phylosophy as an act of creationAs an artist.I think he was an Artist and a rebel.Misunderstood and judged as many few..will always capture attention from curious minds.
4-Wittgenstein.He was tremendous logical and analithical author who has turned almost mistical at the end.Modest, corageous,mind gifted...he aported to Analythic Philosophy to Logic, to Semiotic and to Metaphisych.He was at the front(War) .He moved to Ireland and die at 40 something of Cancer.
5-Marx.I am sorry!it is not a polithical thing.Only that he has made the most tremendous analysis of the material and social history af the world.Even his detractors give him the reason...I mean capitalists give him the reason(plusvally, human allienation, explotation, social structures,ideology ,class hate)and even the countries who aware from class worker revolution did it through the atention of that class requirements(Give the working men nice houses and salaries who aloud them taking a holiday and a nice car and will through away revolutionary ideas)The English handled it very well...the the post industrial societies keep giving marx the reason.THE PREDOMINANT IDEOLOGY IT IS THE DOMINANT CLASS IDEOLOGY....tell me is not true!
I am talking about his analisis of the material history.I do not agree with his atheism or his proletary dictature. :Idea:

----------


## Bakiryu

Why isn't Nietzsche there?  :Bawling:

----------


## Virgil

> 5-Marx.I am sorry!it is not a polithical thing.Only that he has made the most tremendous analysis of the material and social history af the world.Even his detractors give him the reason...I mean capitalists give him the reason(plusvally, human allienation, explotation, social structures,ideology ,class hate)and even the countries who aware from class worker revolution did it through the atention of that class requirements(Give the working men nice houses and salaries who aloud them taking a holiday and a nice car and will through away revolutionary ideas)The English handled it very well...the the post industrial societies keep giving marx the reason.THE PREDOMINANT IDEOLOGY IT IS THE DOMINANT CLASS IDEOLOGY....tell me is not true!
> I am talking about his analisis of the material history.I do not agree with his atheism or his proletary dictature.


I say it's not true. His concept of material history is nonsense. No historian today worth anything believes that history evolves according to laws. History is events, not forces. Marx was wrong about economics, wrong about history, and people still follow him as if he's some god. It's a religion based on faith, rediculoous faith at that.

----------


## Demian

I would have to put Marx right up there too. Even though Communism seems to be dead and his ideal state was never realized his critique of capatalism was right on the money. Capatalism is not the savior of the world any more than democracy (Plato said that the natural end of any democracy was despotism). With the earth heading toward ecological disaster and companies being given free reign to operate at will it would do us some good to go back to Marx and examine the beginnings and ends capatalist societies.

----------


## Virgil

> I would have to put Marx right up there too. Even though Communism seems to be dead and his ideal state was never realized his critique of capatalism was right on the money. Capatalism is not the savior of the world any more than democracy (Plato said that the natural end of any democracy was despotism). With the earth heading toward ecological disaster and companies being given free reign to operate at will it would do us some good to go back to Marx and examine the beginnings and ends capatalist societies.


Can I ask how old you are, Demain? You seem quite young. Just because something is associated with a philosopher ("Plato said that the natural end of any democracy was despotism") doesn't make it correct. Plato was wrong. Just like Marx was wrong. And by the way, the most environmentally damaging societies have been communists. Communism doesn't "seem" to be dead. It is dead, thank God.

----------


## quasimodo1

Philosophers seem to be a fashion although many deserve better. This list above is incomplete, necessarily. My latest "philosopher" of great interest is G. Spencer Brown in his amazingly mystical treatise, "Laws of Form". Brown also was a pre-eminent mathmatician.

----------


## Virgil

Good point Quasi about contempoary philosophers. Everyone else has mentioned outdated philosophers, and frankly philosophy is linked to a time and place. Who really considers Plato's shadows of reality to have any real significance today. I am not familiar with G. Spencer Brown, but he seemed quite interesting when I just looked him up. Along the same lines, the important phiolosphers of our day are Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. They understand today's life and what philosophy means to it.

----------


## quasimodo1

To Virgil: I capitalize Philosophers because anyone with the verve and confidence to take on this task deserves respect on many levels. Now I have to research the two you mentioned. I learned about G. Spencer Brown from the "Autobiography of Allan Watts". (Interestingly it seems Watts died from on overdose, or the effects thereof, of LSD25). That's stuff's not for everybody, expecially considering it can change your DNA. I'll check out your two Philosophers and comment later. Can philosophy be dated, can it be obsolete? I think yes, since if it espouses a modus vivendi, and our present condition as humans changes radically in time. quasi

----------


## Demian

> Can I ask how old you are, Demain? You seem quite young. Just because something is associated with a philosopher ("Plato said that the natural end of any democracy was despotism") doesn't make it correct. Plato was wrong. Just like Marx was wrong. And by the way, the most environmentally damaging societies have been communists. Communism doesn't "seem" to be dead. It is dead, thank God.


There is one example of this from our century and that is when Hitler was elected as Chancellor of Germany. The Athenians enjoyed a full (not representative) democracy for a little more time than the United States has had a go at it. 
I would have said communism was dead also, save for China. But in economic terms we may not be able to classify China as a real communist society any longer. Russia may reject capatalism at any time. Who knows what's around the bend?

----------


## Ludmila607

> I say it's not true. His concept of material history is nonsense. No historian today worth anything believes that history evolves according to laws. History is events, not forces. Marx was wrong about economics, wrong about history, and people still follow him as if he's some god. It's a religion based on faith, rediculoous faith at that.


The marx history analisis is not capricious.He takes the Hegel Dialectic heories wich consider that Human society changes on dialectic way.So Tesis Untitesis and Sintesis...could be not wrong if you consider the precivilizated world, the medieval world, the modern industrial and postindustrial world?Will you deny that there always be peolple commanding power based on material resources(such as lands, weapons, Knowledge...)Will you deny that there always have been people oppressed starving lied and week?Will you deny that religion was used as opium for the mass pain and tireness??
And will you deny our lives at the hands of people who owns once again power, material resources and Knowledge?
Will you deny that their money comes from Plusvally and explotation?
Will you deny that the only reason for waht there is not a global revolution is mass idiotization, religious lies and fear???
Deny it.

----------


## Virgil

> There is one example of this from our century and that is when Hitler was elected as Chancellor of Germany.


Oh come on, one occurence hardly makes a trend. And besides, he may have been elected, but he did not step down or stand for further elections. He held power by dictatorial force.




> The Athenians enjoyed a full (not representative) democracy for a little more time than the United States has had a go at it.


Are you predicting that the US will not be a democracy (actually it's a Republic, which is significantly different than the Athenians) in the near future? That's putting yourself on a limb. What form of government would you prefer? Aristocracy? I would think then you would prefer to be king. Or do you mind being a peasant. Or would you prefer a dictatorship? Then we can all salute you, or would you prefer to be chief of the secret police?




> I would have said communism was dead also, save for China. But in economic terms we may not be able to classify China as a real communist society any longer. Russia may reject capatalism at any time. Who knows what's around the bend?


Communism is dead. DEAD. Face it. China is not communist, nor will Russia ever be again. No economist will ever convince any leader that communism provides for a better life. No mass of people will ever believe it will improve their lives. DEAD. As Ronald Reagan predicted, it's in "the ash heap of history."

----------


## Demian

> Oh come on, one occurence hardly makes a trend. And besides, he may have been elected, but he did not step down or stand for further elections. He held power by dictatorial force.


That is what a despot does.

----------


## Oniw17

Of the ones on the list, Sartre. Subjective experience 4tw.

----------


## The Atheist

> Plato is old, pessimistic about democracy and viewed Sparta as quite a model society. We don't support his ideas too. 
> Descartes is interesting, at least to a mathematician. However, We don't like extreme rationalism.
> Kant- urghhhh. Essential german philosophy. German is a language of heavy words. We're a bit afraid of Kant. 
> We don't know almost anything at all about Russell, sadly. 
> And for Sartre - haven't read him, but on some real-life matters he misunderstood some stuff very hardly - no repressions in Soviet Union for they are impossible in a socialist state, our donkey. We prefer Camus to him.
> So yes, we have eliminated all of them. 
> However, where are pre-Socratics? Socrates? Aristotle? Spinoza? Locke? Hume? Berkeley? Kierkegaard? Camus? Freud? Wittgenstein? There are more options you can enter, you know so why so few of them?


 :Thumbs Up:  

Although I have to remove Russell from the "pointless navel-gazer" list that all the others are on.




> Taliesin - you need to read Russell. He is a most excellent philosopher.





> So what if he's pessimistic about democracy. Today it's clear democracy is not good.


Please. May I suggest that you actually spend some time studying the world that you live in?

We can't discuss this here, but it's a ridiculously provocative [and completely incorrect] statement.

I'll be happy to explain to you by PM why it such a fallacy, but please do try to be a little more considered with your blanket statements.  :Smile:  




> I also think this is very little list for vote. I also don't think Russell is a philosopher in a way, although he wrote books about philosophical subjects.


Yes, that, in fact, is what makes him a philosopher. Just as Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams are philosophers.*

Studying "Philosophy", as a subject does not make one a philosopher - writing widely-read books on life, the universe and everything does; the brush is very broad.




> I, too, am very fond of Russell!


How could you not be? Marvellous, and magnificently flawed man. Of the five in the poll, he's the only one that wild horses could drag a vote out of me for.

Anyone who's read many of my posts will realise that I'd gladly make a large bonfire out of the books of almost all the others mentioned so far. 

Bertrand Russell made the most-relevant point ever in philosophy when he asked people to question *all* philosophies. Using that principle, reading "classical" philosophy has the use of enabling early removal of biases in thinking, but that's about all. Failure to apply critical analysis is likely to lead to serious cases of uniophthalmagia.



*May interest some:

As an atheist, I find that I agree with lots of Richard Dawkins, but I also disagree strongly with some of his thinking.

Rowan Williams, as Archbishop and leader of one of the pargest christian churches, is a person many people would think I have little in common with. 

The reality is that I rate Rowan Williams' philosophies far higher than Richard Dawkins'. [obviously, theistic bits aside  :Biggrin:  ]

----------


## Oniw17

> Bertrand Russell made the most-relevant point ever in philosophy when he asked people to question *all* philosophies.


I haven't actually read any of his work, but do you mean that betrand russel created analytical philosophy?

----------


## syiah

Of the ones listed, I have to say my favourite is Sartre.
I absolutely adore his ideas, AND I have a soft spot for existentialism...
"It's absurd that we're born. It's absurd that we die." - How can you NOT love him?

As for Plato, no offense to anybody, but I'll quote Nietzsche:
"Plato was a bore." 

 :Biggrin:

----------


## jon1jt

i realize the contribution Plato has made to philosophy. alfred whitehead said that all of western philosophy is a footnote to plato. yet i think the philosopher that turned the whole field on its head would have to be Immanuel Kant. had it not been for Kant we might have missed out on those who reacted especially to his Critique of Pure Reason, such as Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, all make reference to him.




> Plato is old, pessimistic about democracy and viewed Sparta as quite a model society. We don't support his ideas too. 
> Descartes is interesting, at least to a mathematician. However, We don't like extreme rationalism.


if you read Plato's Laws, you might change your mind about his pessimism for democracy that is mostly the case in his early work. The Laws is his last work and represents a huge departure from the rigid logic, though still idealistic at heart.

----------


## Virgil

> i realize the contribution Plato has made to philosophy. alfred whitehead said that all of western philosophy is a footnote to plato. yet i think the philosopher that turned the whole field on its head would have to be Immanuel Kant. had it not been for Kant we might have missed out on those who reacted especially to his Critique of Pure Reason, such as Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, all make reference to him.


I agree Jon. I wish though that I could really understand Kant. He baffles me.

----------


## jon1jt

> I agree Jon. I wish though that I could really understand Kant. He baffles me.



i agree with you, i'm still trying to figure him out. 

word of advice: never drink while reading kant, you're bound to go blind.  :FRlol:  

a wise man once told me, read a difficult book once, give it a second chance. read it a second time and still don't get it, buy yourself a good interpretation.  :Biggrin:

----------


## crazefest456

> So what if he's pessimistic about democracy. Today it's clear democracy is not good.


Um... the democracy Plato was talking about is totally different from what we call democracy today. Democracy literally means, to be ruled by the mob. It's apparent that that isn't true today.

----------


## Ludmila607

> Plato is old, pessimistic about democracy and viewed Sparta as quite a model society. We don't support his ideas too. 
> Descartes is interesting, at least to a mathematician. However, We don't like extreme rationalism.
> Kant- urghhhh. Essential german philosophy. German is a language of heavy words. We're a bit afraid of Kant. 
> We don't know almost anything at all about Russell, sadly. 
> And for Sartre - haven't read him, but on some real-life matters he misunderstood some stuff very hardly - no repressions in Soviet Union for they are impossible in a socialist state, our donkey. We prefer Camus to him.
> So yes, we have eliminated all of them. 
> However, where are pre-Socratics? Socrates? Aristotle? Spinoza? Locke? Hume? Berkeley? Kierkegaard? Camus? Freud? Wittgenstein? There are more options you can enter, you know so why so few of them?



Please.read Pascal , Nietszche, Spinoza and Leibniz.
They were reaching the pint really.
Not that boring Kant cathegorization.
Not that solid Hume empirism.
No that Locke good sense.
Read the Greeks and read the Renacence Phylosophers.They approaches to something real.As real as unity in plurality.Many of them were cuantic before Einstein.
They go by the pats of Math, methaphisichs and Geometric moved to truth.

----------


## Midas

I haven't read every post, but I did most of them. So, if my points here have been made by another (one I have missed) then, it will merely strengthen the point of view taken, in that it is one shared by more than one, whether it is accepted as valid by the originator, or not.

First, I feel it is misleading to ask - 'vote for your favourite philosopher', and then provide a list from which to chose. To chose any would be stating that that person was your favourite philosopher. Which, if one's favourite was not on the list would be incorrect.

To avoid this, it should have been put as - which of the following philosophers do you prefer (or words to that effect).

Second, philosophy covers a vast subject area which I feel is demanding too much of anyone to provide all the answers, or thought provoking ideas that reach into every area. Therefore, I feel we should always maintain an open mind, and a liberal one, which means that we need more than one to help us
to satisfy our quest for wisdom of life.

The human mind is fickle and highly sensitive to mood, besides many other
influences. Therefore to ask of it 'what is your favourite composer, or writer,
can evoke a quick yes or no type answer if pressed, but if one is seeking a response that is meaningful, it is a question that should not be asked.

For example, I have many classical books on my shelves from Wind in the Willows, to a collection of Shakespeare's Comedies (with a broad expanse in between, and beyond. I have CD's of the 50's popular music and Tchaichovski's 6th, It is the same with my DVD collection. I read, I listen, and I watch a number of them many times over. It depends what mood I am in, each serves to stimulate that mood at that particular time.

As a result, I could well be influenced in my reply by my mood at the time. I am not a 'moody' person in it's literal meaning, but, like most, I have, and cherish my differing moods like I love my change of seasons.

Having covered that 'brief' introduction (smile), intended to explain if not excuse my deviation from the thread promoter's words of guidance - the 'philosopher' that I feel satisfies most of my 'mood' patterns is one that is not really classed among the more accepted and illustrious names - William Shakespeare. Every page of his prolific works be it comedy or tragedy just oozes a deep understanding of life gleaned from an experience that appears
has reached from the high, into its very depths.

The most extreme emotion, true love, which some consider above that term, and which has been, and is, at the root of our greatest concerns, and experiences that continually shape our lives from birth to death, I feel is defined by Shakespeare at its most definitive in his sonnet # 116

Until we get a solid understanding of what love is, and what it is not. much else in life is of little relevance. Love is where the wisdom of life starts, and ends. He leaves no grey areas.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O no! it is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wandering bark,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come:

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error and upon me proved,

I never writ, nor no man ever loved.


William Shakespeare

----------


## Ludmila607

Great post!

----------


## wilbur lim

Thereby,the results had shown explicitly that Plato is the optimal philosopher.Many apologies,I didn't even heard of them,sigh...I am melancholy,but I shall research on them when I am unoccupied in the metropolis.

----------


## billyjack

i'd put thoreau way up there. Nietzche should've been on the list.

----------


## xXxSair01xXx

Until I studied his work futher i loved the idea of Sartre's freedom and i still do as i think it has the least problems and enjoyed learning about his philosophy (plus i passed the exam!)

----------


## Theunderground

Friedrich wilhelm Nietzsche.

'The only philosopher who i had anything to learn from'... :Biggrin:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Where's Mary Wollstonecraft? Also, you've got Sartre, but not Simone de Beauvoir?

----------


## RaqfoR

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche...

----------


## minke

i voted for sartre absolutely

----------


## Heteronym

Bertrand Russell.

The man had a sense of humor and could dismantle the follies of contemporary society without breaking a sweat. Instead of creating a grand system of thought to explain human nature and then trying to shoehorn humans into it, the way philosophers tend to do, Russell was merely an observer who reflected about what he saw. When I read him, I always get the impression I'm reading a man who really understands the average man's thoughts and behaviours. His men are real and not intellectual abstractions designed to prove the philosopher's system.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> Yeah, where's Aristotle?


I know, right? arguably the second best philosopher ever, right before Plato and right after Kant.

----------


## yuka

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are my favorite

----------


## Obloo

> Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are my favorite


Max is my favorite because i love regular patterns he had found . How useful they are ! Could you tell me what is meaning of the first one in Chinese ?

----------


## Theunderground

Hume is now 'the man'.

----------


## rajeevrnair

Frederich Nietsczhe has not been included...wonder why?

----------


## Theunderground

Though i have a current interest in Hume,Freddy is without doubt the tops...

----------


## chrissponias

There is a lot you ignore about Plato. He was a brilliant philosopher.

----------


## EricW

My vote.

----------


## Stonebolt

No Eckhart Tolle in the poll?

----------


## Ubercritter

This poll is a little limited. But out of the few options given I choose Sartre, simply because he managed to play with a concept of nothingness that actually makes sense.

I have never been a big fan of Plato because his philosophy/politics is, at its base, a type of religious conservatism. 

Kant never did solve a lot of the stuff he set out to solve, he just made them more difficult for other people to grapple with. his writing is inaccessible. 

Russell was not consistent enough, from work to work, for me. Though he has done and said some interesting things. 

Descartes cut Man in two, and now we don't know how to put him back together again. Closest we have gotten I think is Dennet.

----------


## maraki16

my favourite is plato. i had studied him extensively for a year at high school. i really liked his theory of ideas, and i think that his theories and his way of thinking really set the pillars for western philosophy. it is true that his theory about politics is really elitistic, and he views democracy in a different sense, but what i like about him is that he really justifir=es and puts an accurate framework for what he suggests. one moe thing i like about plato, is that his theories blend with literature and poetry. i find it really interesting that he uses so many allegories, similes, metaphors etc. i think that beginning from ancient greek philosophy (and there were many philosophers, other better and other worse, who did not contribute a lot to the shaping of this science) will give everyone a great basis, in order to be able to understand modern philosophy, especially sine many more modern philosophers used the theories of the ancients. this science, like every other, should be studied progressively, moving from an era to another, from the simpler to the more complex. and i think everyone can understand plato more or less, at least most of his main points. and i love his narratives and how he gave a setting and supposed protagonists to present his theories...

----------


## lieasleep

> I haven't read every post, but I did most of them. So, if my points here have been made by another (one I have missed) then, it will merely strengthen the point of view taken, in that it is one shared by more than one, whether it is accepted as valid by the originator, or not.
> 
> First, I feel it is misleading to ask - 'vote for your favourite philosopher', and then provide a list from which to chose. To chose any would be stating that that person was your favourite philosopher. Which, if one's favourite was not on the list would be incorrect.
> 
> To avoid this, it should have been put as - which of the following philosophers do you prefer (or words to that effect).
> 
> Second, philosophy covers a vast subject area which I feel is demanding too much of anyone to provide all the answers, or thought provoking ideas that reach into every area. Therefore, I feel we should always maintain an open mind, and a liberal one, which means that we need more than one to help us
> to satisfy our quest for wisdom of life.
> 
> ...


see i am not sure i agree with you about that whole relevance of love thing. and i don't think sartre would either, which is why i picked him  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Dialectic

I'm going to have to write in Hannah Arendt.

----------


## G L Wilson

Sartre and Russell were pretty hard to pick between. I went with Sartre in the end.

----------


## lieasleep

> Sartre and Russell were pretty hard to pick between. I went with Sartre in the end.


Are you a teacher, G L? I am only asking because I, admittedly, always ask myself whether or not you are being facetious when we talk which is a very teacherly thing to do. Don't mean to get personal, just curious.

(not that _this_ post was facetious, in regards to other things we have discussed relating to your choice here)

----------


## G L Wilson

> Are you a teacher, G L? I am only asking because I, admittedly, always ask myself whether or not you are being facetious when we talk which is a very teacherly thing to do. Don't mean to get personal, just curious.
> 
> (not that _this_ post was facetious, in regards to other things we have discussed relating to your choice here)


I reckon Sartre was a man not to teach us anything, and I reckon the same about myself.

----------


## muazjalil

Russell just got 10, that is just Sad :-( ! Russell is the one who got me in to philosophy; epitome of lucidity and clarity of thought; no verbiage, absolute precision and his humor/sarcasm simply breathtaking

----------


## Dark Muse

> Frederich Nietsczhe has not been included...wonder why?


Yes! 

That is who I wanted to vote for. 

Of the ones on the list I am really torn between 

Descartes and Satre but I think Satre has the slight edge and will win my vote.

----------


## G L Wilson

I would vote for myself, actually, if I had a chance.

----------


## Theunderground

Male:By a million miles shakespeare.
Female:ISIS,then Nel Noddings.

----------


## Crass the head

Schopenhauer

----------


## bentley

Kant has enabled me to present some kind of argument to my athiest friends. His allusion to the eye as being not aware of itself without a brain... Infinately applicable towards the ultimate realization of some unknowable self. Like him and Schopenhauer.

----------


## Des Essientes

Schopenhauer is an atheist. Your friends should present his argument to you.

----------


## Theunderground

Kant is not necessarily an argument against atheism. In fact you say he can be used for as the 'thing in itself' must still be a thing. and 'god' is no such thing. Anyway,Kant be bothered with philosophy anymore. It just a way out of the fly bottle. Maybe its better not to enter the bottle in the first place.

----------


## cafolini

> Kant is not necessarily an argument against atheism. In fact you say he can be used for as the 'thing in itself' must still be a thing. and 'god' is no such thing. Anyway,Kant be bothered with philosophy anymore. It just a way out of the fly bottle. Maybe its better not to enter the bottle in the first place.


Kant was a man with an extremely funny seriousness of which he was totally unawared. 
There are many who I could declare stooges of reason, Aristotle being the first, however elementary and full of gases. But here is a conversation between three possible ones having achieved a little more Protagorian sophistication.

George Berkely- My dear fellows, lovers of reason, all of the aspects of perception are in reality the ideas present in a person's mind. The observer doesn't make objects exist out there, but rather the certainty of their existence is introduced in him directly by God. What God doesn't give him makes him divinely ignorant.

Immanuel Kant- Not only that, George. The basic principles of science are strictly based on the structure of the mind much more than on the external world. Take heed that because of a favor God has granted us, we know with absolute certainty that 2+2 = 4 a-priori. Those who admit not knowing why it is so are the ones that accept ultimate truth and describe it without being able to explain it.

Albert Einstein- God didn't play die with us. It is so. I can only describe it; cannot explain it. He who flies faster in vaccuo gets fatter, denser, and lives longer. It's like a miracle that requires a lot of imagination and not much of any particular knowledge.

George Berkeley- Then, dear Albert, I haven't the slightest of doubt that being thin causes premature death. It's a paradox. We should fly faster and reach for heaven the earliest. Thus fat, dense, and pinkish, we could get there like cherubins, not like the boring seraphins that usually accompany us.

...............................

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I like Mary Wollstonecraft and Baruch Spinoza.

----------


## Theunderground

Every philosopher in history,even the top three Nietzsche,all zennists and Wittgenstein,were really comedians,court jesters and bufoons. The thing is the aformetioned three were aware of this defect. The entire canon of philosophical wisdom,east and west,could probably be written in a couple of pages.

----------


## cbj719

Søren Kierkegaard!!
He is the genius.

----------


## mal4mac

> Kant is not necessarily an argument against atheism. In fact you say he can be used for as the 'thing in itself' must still be a thing. and 'god' is no such thing. Anyway,Kant be bothered with philosophy anymore. It just a way out of the fly bottle. Maybe its better not to enter the bottle in the first place.


As you are in this thread, making serious philosophical arguments and para-phrasing Wittgenstein, then methinks you *are* bothered with philosophy! Now you can argue against that - but if you do, I win again  :Smile:

----------

