the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

What philosopher suits you most? posted 06 Jun 2005, 09:06 by Ashmael, Candidate

Answer the poll! view post


posted 07 Jun 2005, 12:06 by AleoMagus, Commoner

That's actually a strange list. Some very notable exceptions and some surprising options for a list ten names long. Is there a reason for that? I vote Quine, if I can. Regards Brad S view post


posted 09 Jun 2005, 08:06 by JJ_99uk, Commoner

I had to look up some of those names - seems an odd list to me, but then I'm not a philosophy expert :) . If we can pick others, I'll vote for Wittgenstein (in his later years). JJ view post


posted 09 Jun 2005, 17:06 by Quinthane, Candidate

No entry for[b:2oqfhphf] Ignatius J. Reilly[/b:2oqfhphf]? You sure? don't seem right, somehow. view post


posted 14 Jun 2005, 13:06 by azdahak, Candidate

Epicurus and Hume! HOT view post


posted 17 Jun 2005, 16:06 by dolemite, Commoner

Lao Tzu! May the Tao reign supreme and every human being learn to avoid striving and let the universe work itself out as it cannot help but do. Muddafukas! view post


posted 20 Jun 2005, 22:06 by tellner, Peralogue

Geylani, Al-Ghazzali, Maimonedes and Korzybski! view post


posted 21 Jun 2005, 21:06 by Super Frog, Candidate

Fools, vote Bng'nab! His Philosophical puissance is as great as his obscurity! view post


posted 27 Jul 2005, 18:07 by Lucimay, Subdidact

Lao Tzu too. view post


posted 27 Jul 2005, 23:07 by target, Auditor

Im gonna have to do some researhc here. I dont mind Abelard, mainly because he has come up in my studies, argued with Bernard of Claivaux (which i love him for :D) and ended up being castrated, not very pleasant. Hume is interesting too. Im going to think on this. view post


posted 28 Jul 2005, 00:07 by Lucimay, Subdidact

machiavelli view post


posted 28 Jul 2005, 01:07 by target, Auditor

Not too fond, mainly because i struggled to figure out the nature and meaning of Machiavellian characters in Shakespeare, and still haven't got it down. I haven't read '[i:1pg5uidb]The Prince[/i:1pg5uidb]' though, so i'm not going to write him off. view post


posted 08 Aug 2005, 00:08 by saintjon, Auditor

Another vote for Lao-tzu, but as much as I love kicking back I'm not nearly as good at it as Lao-tzu is supposed to have been (if you believe that there actually was one man named Lao-tzu) view post


posted 01 Feb 2006, 16:02 by rycanada, Peralogue

Machiavelli as a modern gamer: "3\/1|_ FTW!" view post


posted 03 Feb 2006, 11:02 by Peter, Auditor

I would say that Machiavelli doesn't count as a philosopher, much more of a political theorist really. Also whilst I don't know Lao-Tze's thinking, I suspect it doesn't really fit into the Western Definition of philosophy, which is not to say that he is less intelligent/interesting, but rather that he most likely can't be compared to the list of philosophers on the poll. I also think the list is a little weird, you include Plotinus and Plato (the former principally interpreted the latter), but not Hume. Oh well doesn't really matter, after all everyone knows Kant is the greatest philosopher ever... view post


posted 05 Feb 2006, 08:02 by Nasrudin's Shadow, Candidate

So, is Lao Tzu winning? Amazing. And he hasn't even lifted a finger in his own cause... view post


posted 10 Feb 2006, 17:02 by Vetinari, Commoner

Popper, as both Machiavelli and Epicurus is missing from the options list. "the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." view post


posted 21 Feb 2006, 20:02 by selfnoise, Commoner

Another vote for (the somewhat mythical) Lao Tzu. If we're restricted to the Western Canon, I'd go for Lucretius or Plutarch (if either man actually counts). And Plato... I find that most modern philosophers are just restating or overcomplicating Plato. view post


posted 21 Feb 2006, 21:02 by unJon, Auditor

Where the heck is Hume???? He is the man and gets my vote. view post


posted 21 Feb 2006, 21:02 by selfnoise, Commoner

I visited Hume's grave once. That said, the whole Hume-Kant-Hegel love connection didn't do much for me in college. OTOH I think Hume does belong on the above list. view post


posted 26 Feb 2006, 00:02 by Falagar, Commoner

Hume would be mine as well...and I've developed some fascination for Zeno (of Kition). view post


posted 11 Mar 2006, 15:03 by Sokar, Auditor

An odd list indeed, then again I suppose you just mention philosophers you are aquainted with. From the list I would choose Schoppenhaur, though truely, how can Kant surpass Hegel? view post


posted 12 Mar 2006, 20:03 by Peter, Auditor

Just because one philosopher considers that he is taking another philosopher's works "further", by pointing out all of his mistakes etc. neither implies that he is right and the previous philosopher is wrong, nor even if he is right, that he is therefore greater philosopher of the two. A lot of what the vast majority of philosophers do is essentially dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. At the very least, I don't think it is obvious that Hegel is better than Kant (although I have to admit I haven't studied Hegel directly, but I suspect it would be a lot like Plato and Aristotle, i.e. depends who you prefer). view post


posted 12 Mar 2006, 21:03 by glaz, Peralogue

another vote for Lao Tzu here. oh , and aristotle, too. view post


posted 16 May 2006, 22:05 by Brahm_K, Candidate

Heraclitus is just such a badass that I am tempted to vote him, and Hume isn't on the list, so I'm going to vote Spinoza. view post


posted 19 May 2006, 08:05 by Curethan, Didact

I have read very few of these, Shopenhauer was recently recommended to me, but I think I'll have to go to a university bookshop to get a hold of any of these guy's book's - cuz we don't hold with fancy book larnin here in Australian bookshops. So if anyone wants to recommend a good place to start (I've read Lao Tzu, Nietsche's "Beyond.." and Plato's "Republic") view post


posted 19 May 2006, 19:05 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Machiavelli view post


posted 19 May 2006, 19:05 by Peter, Auditor

[quote:4bed99n4]So if anyone wants to recommend a good place to start (I've read Lao Tzu, Nietsche's "Beyond.." and Plato's "Republic")[/quote:4bed99n4] I have to admit I have neither read Lao Tzu, nor Nietzche directly (read some stuff on him) so I'm not sure what might interest you, but Descartes' Meditations is really excellent. It is philosophically fascinating (and massively important in the history of philosophy), but also elegantly written (like Plato). Depending on how you want to go after that you could either read more history of philosophy (which does not mean it is irrelevant to contempory philosophy), like Locke's [i:4bed99n4]An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[/i:4bed99n4] and Hume's [i:4bed99n4]An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding[/i:4bed99n4], or you could read about the history of philosophy, such as Russell's [i:4bed99n4]A History of Western Philosophy[/i:4bed99n4]. I would say contempory introductions should be fine, but I think most contempory academic philosophy is quite difficult to get into without some sort of basis. [quote:4bed99n4]Machiavelli[/quote:4bed99n4] I would say, more of a political theorist than a political philosopher (even in his [i:4bed99n4]Discourses[/i:4bed99n4]). view post


posted 25 Jun 2006, 12:06 by Anasurimbor Bob, Commoner

J-P Sartre. I really dig the whole existentialism thing.....man :D Surprised there's not more existentialists around... I love the whole poststructuralist deal, too. Gave up reading Derrida after uni though...makes my head hurt too much. Ouch. Should try and pick him up again soon... Oooh - nearly forgot Wittgenstein and Roland Barthes - two more of my favourites! view post


posted 06 Jan 2007, 13:01 by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

My vote would be for Lao Tzu, however it is doubted that he is actually a single person of course, and the closest western philosophy (and all the philosophers seemed to be western) gets to Taoism or process ontology in general would probably be Nietzche. His works are all very interesting, if perhaps a little dated. His life was also very interesting, and it seems he died broken and insane. If Nietzche was alive today, I would probably be madly in love with the man. view post


posted 10 Jan 2007, 02:01 by Buckethead, Peralogue

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's first chapter of "a thousand plateaus capitalism and schizophrenia" entitled "Introduction: Rhizome" (is my favorite piece of writing (cultural theorists count right?) but it's taking long enough to read that book and i haven't read anything else of theirs. otherwise i'd have to vote for Lao Tzu, real easy to read but important. ethics don't get the attention they deserve. view post


posted 26 Mar 2007, 05:03 by Jamara, Auditor

Karl Marx . . . errr . . . In mean Socrates. It's not so much that I loved his arguements, rather, I loved how he argued them. [quote="Buckethead":275ji6ay] (cultural theorists count right?)[/quote:275ji6ay] If they count, then definitely Daniel Quinn! That bad mudda fukka changed my life. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.