Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why? - Page 2

Kuciwalker · December 30, 2003, 11:05

I like Kant

oedo · December 30, 2003, 11:34

: Thomas of Aquin, Bertrand Russel

: Ayn Rand; George W. Hegel

Whaleboy · December 30, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Least favourite: Popper. His "enemies on the open society", along with the poker incident ant his beliefs in absolutes that went with it are enough to make me despise what he's done.

AFAIK, the poker incident was a fabrication. Popper was a good political philosopher and a competent proponent of democracy. I don't like what he did but he did it very well. Its the same situation with Kant.

Quote:

If you want to calculate, do some maths. If you want to talk about people, forget the rigid rationality, economics has shown it isn't true.

Which would seem to leave a somewhat existentialist solution (not necessarily Sartre but the generic field). What that basically means is applied relativism

. Utilitarianism does therefore suck *dances on grave of Bentham*.

Whaleboy · December 30, 2003, 12:23

Quote:

I like Kant

Hence your problem

Soul Survivor · December 30, 2003, 12:57

Best: Plato, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Protagoras!

Worst: any of those bloody utilitarians

Whaleboy · December 30, 2003, 13:50

I think I have minions!!

Soul:

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 30, 2003, 13:59

Personally I think they should have given up right after the Epicureans came along.

Bereta_Eder · December 30, 2003, 14:03

I like Protagoras (a sophist) because he could weazel his way out of practically anything. Added bonus that he could seriously piss off Plato.

Soul Survivor · December 30, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Personally I think they should have given up right after the Epicureans came along.

epicureanism! now thats a useful philosophy!

Harry Tuttle · December 30, 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Combine limitless logical fallacies and the morally despicable idea (according my philosophy

) that greed is good, and you get her.

I wouldn't say her philosophy is that greed is good. More to the point it is about ownership of your creations and your dominion over them. There are numerous times in her books where she has a character being forced to give out a loan to a disreputable person, give up their formula to the benefit of the do-nothing leeches in power, or conform to how others think.

It's not about greed, it's about working hard toward a greater goal, striving for excellence, and more importantly keeping the goddamn looters off your back who seek to mislead with "for the greater good of society" rhetoric.

In order to understand Rand's outlook on things I think you have to understand her life. She was a baby of the Communist Revolution and had her family thrown into poverty by the Marxists. Anyone who would have gone through that would have some very hard views on who and what the "looters" are and what capitalism is really all about.

Not to say she's perfect though. Her writings were during and after ww2, but she left out any thoughts on war. And her writings didn't attempt to design an everyday life for people, just some sort of framework for what she calls "the self".

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 30, 2003, 15:15

I believe she also concluded that one of the most evil men in history was Robin Hood.

Agathon · December 30, 2003, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by bfg9000

Derrida's deconstruction of Heidegger and Hegel has made me look at those philosophers ideas in a different light. So there is some value to linguistics.

What Derrida seeks to undermine in common with other postmodernists is the metaphysical certainty not only that the unique 'I' behind any utterance guarantees a consistent, totally conscious, and rational point of view, or that a unified meaning might be traced back to an originary intention, but also that graphic modes of representation, be they in words or images, directly refer to a pre-existent reality.

Yes, but it's all so silly. If you want a rational attack on the Cartesian notion of the person read the Churchlands and other eliminativists. They have the benefit of at least attempting to be scientifically respectable. One could argue that other philosophers have said the same thing, Wittgenstein and Rorty leap to the mind. But the difference is that the latter had arguments and wrote in plain language instead of spinning out meaningless claptrap. Where are the arguments?

Heidegger and Hegel. Ugh!

Agathon · December 30, 2003, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I believe she also concluded that one of the most evil men in history was Robin Hood.

She's seriously deranged, a sort of Ann Coulter of the 50s. What's wrong is that she doesn't provide good arguments and ignores much of the recent history of philosophy. It's a cult.

And she does say that it is rational to always act in one's self interest although she doesn't provide a good argument for that.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 30, 2003, 15:47

I've never read her work- though going by my experiences with self-proclaimed Randists I can believe the Robin Hood point. So many seem so preoccupied with preserving the crystalline purity of their own logic that they fail to spot the fact that the conclusion they're taken to is totally dysfunctional.

Spiffor · December 30, 2003, 15:51

Favorite:
Kant. I fortunately didn't read his works (save for Idée d'une histoire universelle d'un point de vue Cosmopolitique, I trust Agathon to tell you the English title

), but what I was taught of his doctrine changed my life. I don't know if he invented the idea, or if he merely repeated it, but I like it when he explains it is in our very nature never to discover reality.

Other favorite:
Bourdieu. Not a philosopher, as he's interested in the study of our contemporary society, but not really a sociologist either. His claims are valid, and his analysis of the social use of symbols is an eye opener. His style is a beyatch though, and I strongly advise to read books about him, rather than to read his books directly.

Least favorite:
Don't know. Insert any pure rationalist here. Or insert any religious figure. Yeah, that'll teach 'em.

Sandman · December 30, 2003, 15:56

Hume is pretty good. I especially like his treatment of miracles.

Oncle Boris · December 30, 2003, 15:59

About Bastiat: it seems to me the only way we could really apply his theory would be to take the entire world's money and then share it equally to make a "new" start. Then again, those born from rich parents in a few years from now would be unduly advantaged, and we would see again a new path towards oligarchy.
And no, I am not an advocate of plundering- neither in its socialist or anarcho-capitalist form. It's just that I think it's necessary for everyone to create their own democratically ran "state oligarchs" to counter-balance the private ones that would arise from free market. I don't think it is possible for a State to stay un-corrupt and truly defend rights (however minimal they may be) if it doesn't have much more power than the private rich. Think of it a second: if the whole State of America had a budget of 4 billions that would be exclusively spent on elections, courts, and police, wouldn't you be affraid that it could be taken over by a large corporation in a matter of years?

Well, I may taking the easy escape route... but I can't go on about Bastiat. Just too hard for me to discuss such things in English. Be sure, however, that I'll be following the discussion, but I won't actively participate in it, unless I feel like my vocabulary is sufficient to offer an intelligent and clear point. (Judging from the replies you gave to my first argument, it is obvious to me I have not made myself entirely clear).

And about Ayn Rand: I don't like her, but I don't think it's fair to say she brings no arguments. Didn't she make a table that sought to prove that "inaction", as a semantic negative, could therefore have no moral value? OK, it may not be the best argument ever, but it desserves some reflexion nevertheless.

Brundlefly · December 30, 2003, 16:19

Ayn Rand was the ultimate spokesman for the left hemisphere of the brain.

Brundlefly · December 30, 2003, 16:27

KrazyHorse · December 30, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by bfg9000
Ayn Rand was the ultimate spokesman for the left hemisphere of the brain.

Buck Birdseed · December 30, 2003, 17:13

I don't agree with any of them, but there are ideas that appeal to me in Hume, Kant, Heidegger, Foucault, plus strangely enough both Popper and Wittgenstein.

Least favourite would have to be Plato, who ****ed up philosophy quite seriously from the start.

Harry Tuttle · December 30, 2003, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I believe she also concluded that one of the most evil men in history was Robin Hood.

Literary history you mean.

Her Robin Hood metaphor does strike upon a decent point of argument. Is robbing the rich and giving to the poor really a moral decision? I mean yes, I believe that the poor should be helped, but the Robin Hood argument supposes that the rich don't deserve their riches or obtained it at the expense of the poor. This isn't necessarily true of course because of the basic reasoning behind trade.

While Rand's assertation that the Robin Hood myth/story is evil is a somewhat valid argument, it is taken out of context from the Robin Hood story. Besides, in Atlas Shrugged one of the characters was a modern day pirate, stealing back the taxes that Hank Rearden, etc... had paid to the government. Anyways, I think this statement was made in jest at the time it was written in the book and wasn't really supposed to make a statement about her philosophy. It's way to hypocritical.

Agathon · December 30, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
I don't agree with any of them, but there are ideas that appeal to me in Hume, Kant, Heidegger, Foucault, plus strangely enough both Popper and Wittgenstein.

Least favourite would have to be Plato, who ****ed up philosophy quite seriously from the start.

Well he pretty much invented it.

Verres · December 30, 2003, 19:18

Quote:

epicureanism! now thats a useful philosophy!

Finally, an -ism I agree with!

Whaleboy · December 30, 2003, 19:44

Hedonism is my personal favourite...

VetLegion · December 30, 2003, 20:18

Yeah, right, everyone here is a philosophy expert too, besides being ace in politics, engineering, sports and everything else...

Hands up who doesn't know anything about philosophy and is just posting something to look smart!

Bereta_Eder · December 30, 2003, 20:36

Agreed with vetty godammit you people are sad

monkspider · December 30, 2003, 21:52

All philosophers are pretty good except Ayn Rand L. Ron Hubbard.

Peter Triggs · December 30, 2003, 23:09

Someone (Urmson?, Quinton?) once remarked something like "When you see the words 'philosophical' and 'theory' conjoined, be prepared to be disappointed." Question to Agathon: "Would you say the same thing about the words 'Apolyton' and 'philosophy'?"

Bosh · December 30, 2003, 23:10

[quoteDidn't she make a table that sought to prove that "inaction", as a semantic negative, could therefore have no moral value?[/quote]
So standing around whistling while someone drowns because you didn't give them a hand isn't immoral?

Gotta love Rand.