Greatest Thinker, in Your Opinion

I'll have to agree with Sodomy

although i agree with some of her statements, for example, in
that she believes that selfishness is a virtue. She still isn't any impressionable than most intelligent women of her time or now. I did enjoy her biography, very moving scenerio arrival in NY with only $50 in her pocket. I guess that amount is alot back then, especially during the depression.
I forgot to include female thinkers. Throughout history, we have a few examples of extraordinary women who held power and influence, such as Hetshepsut, the first female pharaoh of Egypt, and Cleopatra, who managed to empower two notable Roman generals. A sense of women’s resorting to indirect means to achieve power can be seen in these works of the old world, of women’s exerting influence perhaps through the men they marry or the positions they hold, if not aggressive forms of power, then at least with some chance of gaining it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Marx

He is another fellow who knew what he was talking about. His chapter on Primative Accumulation hit the matter dead on the nail. It is the best reason why Russia is in the mire in which it currently finds itself dweling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

George Bush is the greatest Thinker. Everyone knows that...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: I'll have to agree with Sodomy

Let's not forget them.

1) Mary Shelley - philosophy as literature; developed many crucial aspects of the modern novel (in a field otherwise 90% dominated by white males, because they're best at it).
2) Savitri Devi - politics, philosophy and occultism.
3) Lisa Gerrard - music. Whatever she says.
4) Leni Riefenstahl - film. Genius.
5) Jane Austen - yes, good books here also. A step down from Shelley.

 

christian,

Ha! The writer of frankenstein is the greatest female thinker, but the writer of atlas shrugged and the fountainhead is "mentally incompetent"??? That is funny.

This from "christian sodomy"? You are a paradox.

 

1 - I didn't think Frankenstein would be brilliant but it was 150 years ahead of its time.

2 - Schopenhauer wasn't Christian.

 

A great novel I agree. Shelley a great thinker ? I'm not too sure about that.

True, he was buddhist wasn't he? I would take you for more of a Nietzche fan, what with the antichrist and all. Nietzche was basically Schopenhauer with balls anyway...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not exactly . . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ayn Rand was "mentally incompetent"? Are you certain about that?

 

Id be tempted to say that anyone who causes such reactions as Rand does must have been mentally incompetent. Or a genius. But hten i inspire a variety of reactions amongst people, so i must be a genius, right?

Greatest thinkiers, i tend to follow teh usual path of philosophers form arisottle to plato etc, buddha, various others, ho hum, but not rand. Ive read bits and pieces of her stuff, and she is just good at building up her own consutrction, her own little take on the world, which is what most of us do anyways.

 

And I think Darwin was also very backwards DefSkeptic. I would love to know his full history! However he wasn't the first person to come up with the theory of evolution, but he was the first to write it down (I think).

 

Off the top of my head, Newton, Maxwell, maybe Pascal, Tesla and (Ayn) Rand stand out.

 

Ayn Rand wrote some really nice things, but if you take a look at her life, she was one screwed up and contradictory chick. Objectivism was essentially just a cult of personality and she played to that fully.

 

A Guide for living?? I would say one should take what can be known and apply it. If something cannot be known for sure then it cannot be included as part of the philosophy. This may just be my philosophy speaking anyway. I personally wish to know as much as possible so I can have factual guidlines that have been set by the 'creator'. This means rules that cannot be argued with becuase they are only the truth and it means rules that are set by people who know very little (such as politicians) are seen as insignificant.

 

Hmmm....

Albert Camus
Ernst Jünger
Ayn Rand
Dostoyevsky
Heraclites
Nietzsche

 

"Which famed or not-so-famed cogitator, of all the memorable luminaries of human history, would the reader deem as most worthy of praise?"

Tough question. Clearly, one has quite a few figures to choose from-so how do we narrow down the list?

Clearly, we owe the Greeks a great deal. Aristotle and Plato come to mind, though it can be argued their influence was almost as for bad as it was for good. Aristarchus, Archimedes, Euclid, Democritus, and even Pythagoras are very worthy figures. If I had to narrow it down though, I would nominate three figures-Aristotle, Aristarchus, and Democritus. Why? Aristotle, despite his mistakes, was extremely important in the way he categorised knowledge and established logic; he also made very important contributions to a vast number of fields. If Aristotle's later readers had thought to test his ideas in science and to extend his philosophy rather than treat it as a book of revered wisdom, civilisation might have gotton along further than it has now. Aristarchus is important in my view because he suggested a heliocentric solar system and that the Sun and Moon might be made of the same stuff as the Earth. This may not seem that important, but a crucial step towards the rise of science (especially astronomy) and its progress up until our time is the realisation that the same basic natural laws and processes that occur here on Earth, and we observe in our everyday lives or in the laboratory, occur everywhere else in the universe. Once this fact was realised, the heavens no longer were some mysterious set of spheres held in motion by the Gods, but could be understood by means available to the human mind. Not only did Aristarchus seem to anticipate this, but he had the foresight to imagine Earth might not be at the center of the cosmos; an idea that had virtually universal acceptance (by both the public and educated alike) in his time. Had Aristarchus's idea been followed up, the realisation that Earth was not at the center of the universe (and all the implications this realisation had) might have occured well before Copernicus.

Democritus is listed because he argued all things were made by atoms moving about in motion. Although many of his scientific ideas were wrong in detail, this basic notion-that everything in the universe is made of particles in motion-is incredibly important to the rise of later mature sciences such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, and in the 20th century, particle physics, cosmology, biochemistry, biology and medicine. Feynman described the 'atomic hypothesis' as the most important in all of science and for good reason-the exploration of the atom paved the way for quantum mechanics and nuclear physics, and hence for a great deal of modern science.

After these figures would come Newton, who invented the calculus and classical mechanics. The development of the calculus and of classical mechanics would revolutionise science, and heavily determine the development of science until the 19th and 20th centuries. In philosophy I would consider Descartes as perhaps the most important figure until Kant. After Kant, Schopenhauer in my view was probably the best philosopher. In the 20th century it is hard to say who the most important philosopher was, but Wittgenstein, Heidigger, Freud, and a few others are worthy of rememberance. In 20th century science, Einstein and all the founders of quantum mechanics are certainly of critical importance, and will be so for quite a while. Feynman was perhaps the best physicist after these men.

 

Like your list EI Sparks.

I have been most impressed with Kant when reading for clarity and reason. I think Martin Heidegger's being and Time is great in concepts and thought depth but not as clear to read.

I guess many of the greatest thinkers must have eben people who have made the most differences in terms of improvement in the lives of the general population- perhaps through developing immunistaions for instance.

 

i say:

Rand(aside from her sexual theory)
Freud(for some of his sexual theory)
Psychology
Dalai Lama(for teaching compassion, most everything else is self-immolation)
Aristotle(for the foundation)
ME.



Thats all for now.
hopefully dostoevsky will follow once i read some of his works.

 

funny...

it seems that most people either lean one of these two ways:


Rand OR Kant


interesting. Anyone who likes kant should read rand, or vice versa.

 

Why Squashbuckler?

 

why read?

why read?
isnt that self evident?