Who are they? I know there's Dawkins, Tenzin Gyatso, and some bishop who's name I can't remember, but are there any who could parallel Mill or Hegel?

I think some of them are right here on this site as well as other boards. Seems that many people are as gifted as those you've mentioned from what I read online. Just because they don't produce books or are collge grads they still can exceed expectations.

I think some of them are right here on this site as well as other boards. Seems that many people are as gifted as those you've mentioned from what I read online. Just because they don't produce books or are collge grads they still can exceed expectations.I was thinking almost the same thing, Cosmos. Philosophy, as a mode of being, has grown up—the pied piper is no longer essential.

I think some of them are right here on this site as well as other boards. Seems that many people are as gifted as those you've mentioned from what I read online. Just because they don't produce books or are collge grads they still can exceed expectations.

Who on sciforums has produce even one post that you can put next to any single paragraph from one of JS Mill's Essays and say they are equal in quality? There are some pretty cool people here, but that's like saying you seen Socrates at the end appt. selling crack.

What kind of Philosophy are you into? Analytic or Contemporary? Either way, I agree with cosmic, just because someone hasn't published a book or had a formal education doesn't mean they cannot be at the same level as any other mainstream or well-known philosopher in history...Also, focusing on only one type of Philosophy or one or two philosophers (e.g., Mills and Hegel) will leave you without any answers to the questions that you seek. Immersing yourself in all types of Philosophy and thought, whether you agree or disagree, is the only true method of learning and advancing yourself.

What kind of Philosophy are you into? Analytic or Contemporary? Either way, I agree with cosmic, just because someone hasn't published a book or had a formal education doesn't mean they cannot be at the same level as any other mainstream or well-known philosopher in history...Also, focusing on only one type of Philosophy or one or two philosophers (e.g., Mills and Hegel) will leave you without any answers to the questions that you seek. Immersing yourself in all types of Philosophy and thought, whether you agree or disagree, is the only true method of learning and advancing yourself.

I like all philosophy, I just used Mill and Hegel as examples because On Liberty was one of the best things I've ever spent my time reading, and I'm currently reading Hegel's Science of Logic. I would say I probably like analytical philosophy over contemporary in most cases though.

I like all philosophy, I just used Mill and Hegel as examples because On Liberty was one of the best things I've ever spent my time reading, and I'm currently reading Hegel's Science of Logic. I would say I probably like analytical philosophy over contemporary in most cases though.

How much philosophy have you read?

By the way, I don't know if he is one of "today's" philosphers, because he is dead, but J. Krishnamurti is one of my favorites to read, and one of the most brilliant men of the last century, at least.

How much philosophy have you read?
I've read a few Socratic dialogues, quite a few [insert show/movie title] and philosophy books, a couple The Minds of the Great Philosophers type of books, lots of blogs, wikipedia entries and other internet stuff, and some of the 'classics.' Every 3 months or so I'll develop an interest in philosophy for a couple months and then get tired of it for a while again.
By the way, I don't know if he is one of "today's" philosphers, because he is dead, butJ. Krishnamurti is one of my favorites to read, and one of the most brilliant men of the last century, at least.
I'll read his wiki, and probably the references from it, thanks.

A lot of people point to his famous speech given at the dissolution of The Order of the Star "Truth is a Pathless Land" as a good introduction to him and his work.


http://bernie.cncfamily.com/k_pathless.htm

There are plenty of people writing intelligent and insightful philosophy today (or at least in recent years, since a lot of my favorites have died in the past 20 years). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_philosophy

I think the post-structuralist/post-modern stream is worth investigating (i.e., Jacques Derrida, Giles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, etc.), especially if you're interested in the political aspects of philosophy (which I assume from the examples you gave). A lot of their stuff is fairly abtuse and crosses multiple disciplines, but it's also thought-provoking. It also makes for better reading than a lot of contemporary analytical philosophy, although I have to admit that I'm not as well versed in the latter so my impressions may be skewed.

Who on sciforums has produce even one post that you can put next to any single paragraph from one of JS Mill's Essays and say they are equal in quality? There are some pretty cool people here, but that's like saying you seen Socrates at the end appt. selling crack.

I just think that I've read some very good philosophies here but really can't link you to any of them. I believe that we need to listen to what our peers say for sometimes they are smarter than any philosopher that has come along...IMHO.

but J. Krishnamurti is one of my favorites to read, and one of the most brilliant men of the last century, at least.

I agree, and also, I would nominate Osho, lol; for me, those 2 guys walk hand by hand in bringing "life´s big questions" to the light, in a simple manner, understandable to all.

Have present-day philosophers asked or answered any philosophical questions that haven't been asked or answered hundreds of years ago?

Baron Max

Have present-day philosophers asked or answered any philosophical questions that haven't been asked or answered hundreds of years ago?

Baron Max

Good one, the answer is no. BUT, the real stuff have been deleted from records in order to keep manipulating people as they do now (politicians & priests).
It is hard to tell what is true from ancient records, a new source is always good to have.

Indeed, even repeated aphorisms are a good remedy to remove the lies and bullshit that prevades today or the future..

Have present-day philosophers asked or answered any philosophical questions that haven't been asked or answered hundreds of years ago?

Baron Max

Its not so much about answering questions as it is about finding the right questions to ask alot of the time.
For all those who think philosophy is useless, read up on karl popper.
Anyone whos a fan of the scientific method owes popper a very large pint, or infact just pour a little liquor once in a while (since hes now dead).

Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994)

The most important philosopher of science since Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Sir Karl Popper finally solved the puzzle of scientific method, which in practice had never seemed to conform to the principles or logic described by Bacon. Instead of scientific knowledge being discovered and verified by way of inductive generalizations, leaping from data into blank minds, in terms that go back to Aristotle, Popper realized that science advances instead by deductive falsification through a process of "conjectures and refutations."

Have present-day philosophers asked or answered any philosophical questions that haven't been asked or answered hundreds of years ago?

Yep.

Another one to look at is Peter Singer's work on animal rights, and his general utilitarian ethics.

By the way, I don't know if he is one of "today's" philosphers, because he is dead, but J. Krishnamurti is one of my favorites to read, and one of the most brilliant men of the last century, at least.
So long as we are nominating people who are dead, but haven't been dead too long. Let's throw in a brilliant woman, Ayn Rand.

Yep.

Another one to look at is Peter Singer's work on animal rights, and his general utilitarian ethics.
Peter Singer. He's the bonehead who says you should be allowed to "abort" your child for up to a year after its birth, correct?

Peter Singer. He's the bonehead who says you should be allowed to "abort" your child for up to a year after its birth, correct?

No. He has not proposed any such hard-and-fast rules.

He has, however, made the argument that there is no clear line dividing the moral issues surrounding infanticide from those surrounding abortion. He argues that birth does not provide an easy line that is not arbitrary. He says that in many cases, late-term abortion is practically indistinguishable from infanticide.

No. He has not proposed any such hard-and-fast rules.

He has, however, made the argument that there is no clear line dividing the moral issues surrounding infanticide from those surrounding abortion. He argues that birth does not provide an easy line that is not arbitrary. He says that in many cases, late-term abortion is practically indistinguishable from infanticide.I just read some of his stuff and I hate him now more than before. In his opinion, the most important quality is the ability to suffer. Animals deserve rights, retards don't. It's OK to kill babies, retards, or old people. But wait, there's more! He's also in favor of beastiality!

That man is dangerous. Philosophy is important. It underlies every action taken by thinking beings. As John Maynard Keynes famously observed, the most practical man of business may be the slave of a defunct economist.

It's because of guys like him that William F Buckley said he would rather be ruled by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University. (He should have included Princeton)

It's because of guys like him that William F Buckley said he would rather be ruled by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University. (He should have included Princeton)

(And notice he did not say Yale.)
It was disingenuous of him to make this remark. He tried to make his education clear in every sentence, sometimes making rather enormous pauses as he looked for the longest, least common word to continue with. What bothered him was the politics of professors, which tends to the left, but made what seemed like a populist remark to be snide about them. The problem is he was a product of Yale, the skull and bones society, and later the CIA. Meaning his education and work was all elite, snob levels. He was surrounded by people who intentionally went to Ivy League schools and made efforts to be superior to everyone else. His politics leaned in that kind of elite direction, the US being the 'deserving' world overclass elite culture.

In fact he and his kind made moral decisions that should have scared all of us but only scared some of us. He also supported many decisions that essentially caused thousands and thousands of abortions and infants deaths - all nicely taking place in far away places with darker skinned people.

madanthonywayne:

I just read some of his stuff and I hate him now more than before. In his opinion, the most important quality is the ability to suffer.

Most important for what? For justifying humane treatment of animals?

In this he merely echos Jeremy Bentham, who said the same thing in the 1700s.

Animals deserve rights, retards don't.

He has never made such a claim. Either you don't understand his position, or you're deliberately trying to distort it.

It's OK to kill babies, retards, or old people.

Another falsehood. He has never said that - not as a general proposition, anyway. At the very least you're vastly oversimplifying his positions and extending them way beyond the specific circumstances where such judgments are applicable in his opinion. At worst, you're deliberately distorting in an attempt to paint him in a bad light.

But wait, there's more! He's also in favor of beastiality!

You give no context or support for this claim, which I am sure is also false in its generalities.

The problem is he was a product of Yale, the skull and bones society, and later the CIA. Meaning his education and work was all elite, snob levels. He was surrounded by people who intentionally..... made efforts to be superior to everyone else.
Why is that the problem? Shouldn't everyone intentionally make an effort to be superior to everyone else? I think his problem(just from your post, I haven't heard of him) was just that he was an asshole.

Most important for what? For justifying humane treatment of animals?On suffering
In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer and to plan and anticipate one's future.
He has never made such a claim. Either you don't understand his position, or you're deliberately trying to distort it.

You give no context or support for this claim, which I am sure is also false in its generalities.On beastiality
Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[12] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
So perhaps he's not promoting it, he's just saying it's not so bad.

Why is that the problem? Shouldn't everyone intentionally make an effort to be superior to everyone else? I think his problem(just from your post, I haven't heard of him) was just that he was an asshole.
You've never heard of William F Buckley?

You've never heard of William F Buckley?

No, but after reading his wiki(or skipping around on the page), he seems like a pretty cool guy. What did he do that I should've heard of him(other than the magazine and the show and the books).

No, but after reading his wiki(or skipping around on the page), he seems like a pretty cool guy. What did he do that I should've heard of him(other than the magazine and the show and the books).
Well, the magazine, the show, and the books about covers it.

madanthonywayne:

Please read Equal consideration.

On beastiality...

Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural, it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".

So perhaps he's not promoting it, he's just saying it's not so bad.

You miss the very important qualification in the above - the words "mutually satisfying".

If you disagree with Singer's position, would you care to articulate your reasoning?

Singer seems to have spent the past decade going back on just about every principle he fought for in the 70s and 80s.
Hes obviously had a huge huge change of heart about the place of animals in our world, and when ever i see him interviewed all i get the impression of is a man desperately trying to dance around this fact.

You miss the very important qualification in the above - the words "mutually satisfying".

If you disagree with Singer's position, would you care to articulate your reasoning?
Oh, I caught the mutually satisfying part. This same reasoning could also justify pedophilia. It amounts to "if it feels good, do it". While that might seem like a profound observation after 12 beers or a couple joints, it doesn't impress me as a compelling philosophical argument.

Oh, I caught the mutually satisfying part. This same reasoning could also justify pedophilia. It amounts to "if it feels good, do it". While that might seem like a profound observation after 12 beers or a couple joints, it doesn't impress me as a compelling philosophical argument.

You could not because it would not be satisfying to the parents of the child the was involved in the act. It would bring the parents grief thus the act could not be mutually satisfying.

I have two favorite philosophers.

Aristotle
Einstein

I do not see any modern philosophers(alive) that I can agree with. If I would have to pick one it would be Steven Hawking's even though I do not like the string theory.

You could not because it would not be satisfying to the parents of the child the was involved in the act. It would bring the parents grief thus the act could not be mutually satisfying.
Well, if you fuck a cow, I'll bet it annoys the farmer! I believe Mr. Singer was refering to the parties actually involved in the sex act, not some third party.

Singer seems to have spent the past decade going back on just about every principle he fought for in the 70s and 80s.
Hes obviously had a huge huge change of heart about the place of animals in our world...

How so?

Oh, I caught the mutually satisfying part. This same reasoning could also justify pedophilia. It amounts to "if it feels good, do it". While that might seem like a profound observation after 12 beers or a couple joints, it doesn't impress me as a compelling philosophical argument.

It seems you're taking the statement as one applicable only in the short term. Clearly, pedophilia is not "mutually satisfying" to both parties in the long term, as a general proposition.

Can I write an essay- someone give me homework (hint)- about this topic?

It's because of guys like him that William F Buckley said he would rather be ruled by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University. One of the few things Buckley ever said that I agree with wholeheartedly.

Although I think the quote is actually a bit different, in the numbers somehow?

Nitpick.

Anyway, there have been some new issues in philosophy recently, new questions asked and answers proposed. Daniel Dennett rates pretty high, IMHO. And the "environmentalist" crowd, from Aldo Leopold on through Wendell Berry and the like, has produced essays with thoughts in them the ancients would not recognize.

Seriously ice.
Good information.