Who's your favorite philosopher?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
madviking
north american scum
I'm not a Marxist and I don't like her.
Why not? What right do people have to your labor if they don't earn it?
Malcolm Tucker, obviously.
"If some [vagina] can [intercourse] something up, that [vagina] will pick the worst possible time to [intercourse]ing [intercourse] up because that [vagina]'s a [vagina]."
"...We have grabbed the initiative."
"Yeah, for - five minutes."
"Yeah, well, life is just a succession of five minuteses."
"Ah. So, you're Buddha now."
"Yeah, if Buddha'd been on the cover of GQ Magazine."
"If some [vagina] can [intercourse] something up, that [vagina] will pick the worst possible time to [intercourse]ing [intercourse] up because that [vagina]'s a [vagina]."
"...We have grabbed the initiative."
"Yeah, for - five minutes."
"Yeah, well, life is just a succession of five minuteses."
"Ah. So, you're Buddha now."
"Yeah, if Buddha'd been on the cover of GQ Magazine."
Murky
Deity
Ayn Rand is among my least favorite philosophers. Her main thesis is that selfishness and greed are virtues which I think is absurd.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
David Hume, because some of his arguments are really excellent, but mostly because he's fun. He creatively destroys much of the nonsense of his predecessors and contemporaries. And then substitutes some of his own nonsense, but what the hell, hazard of the profession.
Contemporary favorites: David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Owen Flanagan, Eddy Nahmias, Thomas Scanlon. Not gonna explain why.
Least favorite: Plato, I guess. A genius at writing, but ... Forms? seriously? My criteria for liking a philosopher don't equate to "you have to agree with me", but it is a requirement that the progress you make has to outweigh the effort it will take your descendants to unravel your errors and free themselves from them.
Contemporary favorites: David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Owen Flanagan, Eddy Nahmias, Thomas Scanlon. Not gonna explain why.
Least favorite: Plato, I guess. A genius at writing, but ... Forms? seriously? My criteria for liking a philosopher don't equate to "you have to agree with me", but it is a requirement that the progress you make has to outweigh the effort it will take your descendants to unravel your errors and free themselves from them.
madviking
north american scum
In any civilized society, it is morally reprehensible for some to live in extravagant wealth whilst others live in poverty.
Spoiler :
Not high enough.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
It's a tie between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, they're both passionately crazy. I love passionately being crazy.
Yyyeah. That's not her ideas originally, and her moral metaphysics remind me of the thought systems I created when I was like 15 and knew nothing about anything. It's a surprise she never grew out of it, I guess she was stubborn and/or stupid. She was reductionist about an all right (although imo wrong) tradition and demeaned it into all kind of wrong things. If you support what she does, read something proper, such as Smith or the Austrian school.
And it doesn't surprise me you'd claim her "philosophy" (and I can't stress those quotation marks enough) is the best since Aristotle, because I think that she hasn't read anything but. She doesn't refer to anything prior to her in her works (basic academic tradition you know, to show you know your poop), hasn't written an actual book on her "philosophy" but rather vague construed arguments based on wrong metaphors in a novel and a few crappy articles. She didn't even understand capitalist corporate design; none of her metaphors in any way applied to the real world because of this. Her love for the "ingenious entrepreneur" should look to criticize corporations, not the state. But she doesn't criticize corporations. In any of her works. Therefore she's an idiot with a loud mouth, talking about capitalism in a juvenile way that only a state-hating perspectiveless migrated writer from Soviet Russia could bring. Yes, she understands the worst a state could become. That blinded her to practically every other rational piece of knowledge she could attain about the state.
Marx is studied because he made a scientific tome about capitalism (making everyone understand what it is better) and because his materialist history tradition is actually really good at explaining things idealist history can't.
I don't get why you're bringing Marx up though. I forget, did the poster you replied to talk about Marx?
EDIT: And most importantly to me, her understanding of the humanities is laughable and shows how little she knows about anything when she proclaims stuff about it.
Yyyeah. That's not her ideas originally, and her moral metaphysics remind me of the thought systems I created when I was like 15 and knew nothing about anything. It's a surprise she never grew out of it, I guess she was stubborn and/or stupid. She was reductionist about an all right (although imo wrong) tradition and demeaned it into all kind of wrong things. If you support what she does, read something proper, such as Smith or the Austrian school.
And it doesn't surprise me you'd claim her "philosophy" (and I can't stress those quotation marks enough) is the best since Aristotle, because I think that she hasn't read anything but. She doesn't refer to anything prior to her in her works (basic academic tradition you know, to show you know your poop), hasn't written an actual book on her "philosophy" but rather vague construed arguments based on wrong metaphors in a novel and a few crappy articles. She didn't even understand capitalist corporate design; none of her metaphors in any way applied to the real world because of this. Her love for the "ingenious entrepreneur" should look to criticize corporations, not the state. But she doesn't criticize corporations. In any of her works. Therefore she's an idiot with a loud mouth, talking about capitalism in a juvenile way that only a state-hating perspectiveless migrated writer from Soviet Russia could bring. Yes, she understands the worst a state could become. That blinded her to practically every other rational piece of knowledge she could attain about the state.
Marx is studied because he made a scientific tome about capitalism (making everyone understand what it is better) and because his materialist history tradition is actually really good at explaining things idealist history can't.
I don't get why you're bringing Marx up though. I forget, did the poster you replied to talk about Marx?
EDIT: And most importantly to me, her understanding of the humanities is laughable and shows how little she knows about anything when she proclaims stuff about it.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
yes he is correct about all matters...I love the feeling I get when I read his works,,,
Exactly...I'm intrigued by Kierkegaard,but need to look deeper into his works before I can give a better opinion...
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Fou à lier.
Moderator Action: when using non-english phrases (at least those that are not universially understood), please provide a translation with it - Grisu
On topic: Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, because he was right.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
His writing is excellent because he's a romantic with a Christian philosophy basically not supported by any actual arguments. He just says how things are and writes in pseudonyms demonstrating his point. He's a strange philosopher, and to me not to be taken completely seriously. There is a kind of aesthetics in his writing, though: That is why he is enjoyable.
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
I like Hume, mostly for his turban.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I think Isaac Newton is without equal as a natural philosopher. I mean, inventing a new branch of mathematics to advance physics and astronomy? Quite sublime.
My least favourite is Rousseau. Why not Rand? Because frankly, she's just irrelevant.
