Who Are The Best Philosophers? Why?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by nicholas1M7, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    What if you kick a rock in a dream? Wouldn't it seem the same?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Tell that to your broken toe.

    It wouldn't be the same.

    And if it were? Would it matter?

    To deny a broken toe is to be caught up too much in the nonexistent.

    Sartre's prereflective cogito is the necessary precursor to Descartes' cogito.

    This is a problem with philosophy if one isn't careful.
    One forgets the difference between thought and action.

    But, I can guarantee you that a broken toe will remind you.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    What if this is a huge dream?

    And what is the difference between our perceptions when we are dreaming and when we are awake?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

  8. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    What if it is?
    If you can't tell the difference between dream and reality then what do you think you should do?
    Your broken toe knows.

    Quite a bit.
    If this reality were a 'dream' then it would not be same kind of dream that I have when I sleep at night, I can tell you that.
    The language is being used improperly here.
    The two sorts of 'dream' are blurring together and making the discussion difficult.

    Kick that stone and remind yourself of the difference.
    Don't forget to take your shoe off first.
    Then come back and tell me what you've learned.
  9. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Ok, what if you kick a stone in a dream? Would it be the same as outside the dream?
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Even if you become the greatest philosopher, you will just get relegated to forums like this and junked on.

    Maybe we should get down to the practicalities of life and discuss who is the best tradesman?
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Invert Nexus:

    I agree that Descartes' theological writings are far less, but there is simply no rational critique possible to be made against the cogito. In as much as we limit our discussion to this, he is one of the world's most eminent philosophers.

    But yes, his solispsim certainly is disheartening.
  12. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Of all the people who would say anything, I claim that this is a very good thread.
  13. James G Registered Member


    In Western Philosophy, my overall vote is for Aristotle.
    In the field of ethics, I would give first place to David Hume, second to Aristotle, even though the former built off the latter. (But who in Western Philosophy didn't build off of Aristotle, in some form or other - at least by reacting against his tradition?)
    Hume did not necisarily provide us with the best guide to ethical action, but did offer the most compelling empirical argument for the true foundation of human morality. Although I am biased in favor of empiricism and virtue-ethics.

    On the Cogito being a good or bad argument: It's true that Descartes did ultimately attempt to prove the existence of God, and the cogito argument is extremely limited in casting light on any more complex philosophical question than "do I exist," and maybe leads Descartes to make the wrong conclusion about what a person is (a "thinking thing"), but at the very least it is a solid coherent, argument. I wouldn't know how to disprove it.
  14. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Ayn Rand. Rational self-interest and individual rights.
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Confucius ...

    was a Chinese thinker and social philosopher, whose teachings and philosophy have deeply influenced Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and Vietnamese thought and life.

    His philosophy emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. These values gained prominence in China over other doctrines, such as Legalism or Taoism during the Han Dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD). Confucius' thoughts have been developed into a system of philosophy known as Confucianism . It was introduced to Europe by the Jesuit Matteo Ricci, who was the first to Latinise the name as "Confucius."

    In the Analects , Confucius presents himself as a "transmitter who invented nothing".He put the greatest emphasis on the importance of study,and it is the Chinese character for study (or learning) that opens the text. In this respect, he is seen by Chinese people as the Greatest Master. Far from trying to build a systematic theory of life and society or establish a formalism of rites, he wanted his disciples to think deeply for themselves and relentlessly study the outside world, mostly through the old scriptures and by relating the moral problems of the present to past political events (like the Annals) or past expressions of feelings by common people and reflective members of the elite (preserved in the poems of the Book of Odes

    In times of division, chaos, and endless wars between feudal states, he wanted to restore the Mandate of Heaven that could unify the "world" (i.e. China) and bestow peace and prosperity on the people.Because his vision of personal and social perfections was framed as a revival of the ordered society of earlier times, Confucius is often considered a great proponent of conservatism, but a closer look at what he proposes often shows that he used (and perhaps twisted) past institutions and rites to push a new political agenda of his own: a revival of a unified royal state, whose rulers would succeed to power on the basis of their moral merit, not their parentage;these would be rulers devoted to their people, reaching for personal and social perfection. Such a ruler would spread his own virtues to the people instead of imposing proper behavior with laws and rules.

  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Mmm I truly doubt that.
  17. MysteriousStranger Banned Banned

    Nietzsche criticised cogito ergo sum, saying that a thinker is not neccessarily a prerequisite for a thought and that it is our firm belief in cause and effect that makes us believe that. But that's as far as it goes: a firm belief.

    How so?
  18. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member


    Her philosophy is always refreshing to me. I do have some issues with objectivism, but not many and I will iron out them out.
  19. swarm Registered Senior Member

    No and that sometimes is enough to get me lucid dreaming.
  20. Incompatibalist Registered Senior Member

    Aristotle. I disagree with him on very few things of what I've read. And that is primarily his conception of the soul. But this isn't why I place him at the top but considering the resources he had and the terrible influence of the society/culture in which he had been brought up I would say as far as intelligence goes he is quite possibly one of the greatest thinkers. And what's funny is I think I'm him reincarnated, so what does that say about me? Bahahaha.
  21. Arkantos Registered Senior Member

    I like so many. They all have their individual personalities that make then unique even after all their arguments have been refuted. They have created new concepts to view the world through. They have helped to shaped culture and civilization.

    Someone who should definitely get mentioned at this science forum is Charles Sanders Peirce. This guy was absolutely brilliant.
  22. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    I loved the re-read.

    Notice how much Nietzsche bashing there is.

    No Philosopher ever stirred the shit better....not even Socrates.

  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Interesting to re-read this thread 4 years on.

    It's hard to pick a best philosopher. On problem is that I can agree that somebody was a great philosopher, while at the same time disagreeing with most points of their philosophy.

    A few philosophers who I admire (and tend to agree with on a lot of things, though not everything) include:

    John Stuart Mill (and Jeremy Bentham before him)
    Peter Singer (just to include one contemporary name)

    I'm more interested in moral philosophy than other kinds, so I'm not really qualified to comment on who was/is the "best" in all areas.

Share This Page