Which philosophers do you relate yourself to the most?

Enigma · December 25, 2003, 10:13am

It seems we all have our favorites when it comes to philosophy and perhaps the reason we can identify with certain philosophers more than others is because we can relate to them better than others.

So which philosopher(s) have influenced you the most and which one has the philosophy most relative to your own?

I have been greatly influenced by Nietzsche, Russell, Hume, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Hegel, and Rousseau.

The philosopher most similar to my own philosophy is Bertrand Russell.

I’m interested in the significant influences of others. Thanks.

Warrior_Monk · December 25, 2003, 11:10pm

The people you have mentioned are enemies of the Truth.

Jesus Christ, Pascal, and Kant. All three infallible. And Aristotle.

detrop · December 25, 2003, 11:18pm

The Monk has spoken.

Behold his words.

Thank you, great exalted one.

Marshall_McDaniel · December 26, 2003, 3:21am

Man we had a thread like this here before. Nietzsche, Sartre, Aristotle, Foucault, and others.

All hail the exalted Warrior Monk!

Enigma · December 28, 2003, 11:28am

Really wasn’t looking for an argument, just curious to whom most people identify themselves with. I believe that philosophies are pretty much projections of our self and what we embrace. You can find a lot about a person through which philosophies they relate to.

Warrior_Monk · December 28, 2003, 5:01pm

You weren’t but I was…

I know. Lighten up…

detrop · December 29, 2003, 3:23am

That would be Warrior Monk…oh, wait, you said “philosopher”…

That would be Kierkegaard.

Given this problematic in this social context Kierkegaard perceived a need to invent a form of communication which would not produce stereotyped identities. On the contrary, he needed a form of rhetoric which would force people back onto their own resources, to take responsibility for their own existential choices, and to become who they are beyond their socially imposed identities. In this undertaking Kierkegaard was inspired by the figure of Socrates, whose incessant irony undermined all knowledge claims that were taken for granted or unreflectively inherited from traditional culture. In his dissertation On the Concept of Irony with constant reference to Socrates Kierkegaard argued that the historical Socrates used his irony in order to facilitate the birth of subjectivity in his interlocutors. Because they were constantly forced to abandon their pat answers to Socrates’ annoying questions, they had to begin to think for themselves and to take individual responsibility for their claims about knowledge and value.

Kierkegaard sought to provide a similar service for his own contemporaries. He used irony, parody, satire, humor, and deconstructive techniques in order to make conventionally accepted forms of knowledge and value untenable. He was a gadfly – constantly irritating his contemporaries with discomforting thoughts. He was also a midwife – assisting at the birth of individual subjectivity by forcing his contemporaries to think for themselves. His art of communication became “the art of taking away” since he thought his audience suffered from too much knowledge rather than too little.

Wobbly · December 29, 2003, 5:59am

I have been influenced greatly by Nietzsche, Hume, Sartre, and Voltaire

Nietzsche’s philosophies are the most similar to mine, their is an on going joke with many of my friends, that Nietzsche stole my idea’s 100 years before i conceived them…

What do you see in Kierkegaard, I for one couldn’t stand the guy…

Postadin · December 29, 2003, 6:35am

Well, it seems to me that whether or not you like the philosopher is not really the question. They just want to know which one we feel we each relate to. Maybe de’trop doesn’t enjoy Kierkegaard at all (although I highly doubt this). However, de’trop’s description of Kierkegaard seems to fit his own nature, as well. From my observations of de’trop’s writing, I agree that his very performance relates well to Kierkegaard’s. I also note that he appears to be more intelligent than some people here believe him to be. But who’s to be sure?

As for me, I’m afraid I have very few opinions with regards to just about everything (yes I know you probably don’t believe that since I’m a human being), so I find it hard to relate to any specific philosopher(s). But who knows? Maybe I’ll be able to determine it some day.

Rafajafar · December 29, 2003, 9:11pm

I can’t pick just one. Too many influences, all specific to part of me.

Kierkegaard influences what I consider ideal.

Descartes influences what I consider the wrong.

Neitzsche influences what I consider consistent, but naive.

Machiavelli influences what I consider rule of thumb (neccessary evils).

Dewey influences what I try to be aware of.

Jung influenced my childhood.

No one influences what I believe.

Marshall_McDaniel · December 30, 2003, 12:13am

The thread i was think of was something like “Which philosopher sparked your interest in philosophy?” with sparked not being the same as influenced.

De’trop. How does Kierkegaard’s influence differ from Sartre’s for you?

Warrior Monk. How did any philosopher ever break through that hard shell to influence you?

detrop · December 30, 2003, 3:10am

Modesty and intensity.

His treatment of religion and concepts of “god.”

His sense of humor and contentedness with a world he has the audacity to declare as rediculous and dreadful.

Just a few.

I don’t know any philosopher capable of undermining Kierkegaard.

I certainly can’t compete.

Marshall, Sartre called Kierkegaard a “latter back into himself,” which I suppose means that Sartre too feels closely related to Kierkegaard and his ideas.

I discovered Kierkegaard and Sartre at the same time. I guess you could say that Kierkegaard had seniority with the existential themes that Sartre continued, which even Sartre admits, but as far as a technical and methodological system of philosophy is concerned, Sartre is more thorough.

Nih,

Here is a link where Nietzsche and Kierkegaard have a boxing match. It’s quite entertaining.

island-of-freedom.com/satire/k-vs-n2.htm

Also, there is one comparing Nietzsche and Sartre on the “will” in the essays thread.

Both links can be found at Mark’s member page at Thinedge.org

detrop · December 30, 2003, 3:15am

K: “Can any more foolish contradiction be imagined than this, to want to demonstrate that an individual human being is God? That an individual human being is God, that is, claims to be God, is indeed the offense in an eminent sense. But what is the offense, that which offends? That which conflicts with all (human) reason… Can one, then, make that which conflicts with all reason into the rational-actual? Certainly not, unless one wants to contradict oneself. One can “demonstrate” only that which contradicts with reason. The demonstrations for the divinity of Christ that Scripture sets forth – his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension – are indeed only for faith, that is, they are not “demonstrations.” Neither do they want to demonstrate that all this is in complete harmony with reason; on the contrary, they want to demonstrate that it conflicts with reason and consequently is the object of faith.” - Practice in Christianity, No. 1, The Halt, p. 26

detrop · December 30, 2003, 3:26am

detrop · December 31, 2003, 12:34am

Why ask, Nihilisitic, what problems do you have with Kierkegaard?

I can’t say that there are any philsophers that I “can’t stand,” but I do disagree with a few, assuming I understand what they are trying to say.

To “not stand” a philosopher is a pretty serious conviction. What, may I ask, happened between you two?

Smooth · December 31, 2003, 12:47am

Wow,

for now I will drop off Thoreau, Emerson, Ortega Y Gassett and even though he wasn’t a philosopher per say El Che!

Marshall_McDaniel · December 31, 2003, 12:58am

De’trop- Thanks a googol for the link. I may actually get the courage to delve into my copy of either/or one day. Kierkegaard is definitely to be reckoned with. I would say that i disagree with a lot of plato, but “not stand”? Anybody that posterity gives the name of philosopher to is pretty much worthy of my consideration, not having attained the height to pick laurels off even the shortest…

Smooth! what’s up?

Wobbly · December 31, 2003, 3:21am

Don’t take me that seriously, as to say I can make a serious conviction about anyone or anything, but anyway I don’t see that statment as a conviction…

Ahh Kierkegaard, my archnemisis, how I despise you. Kierkegaard has a keen ability to sweeten even the sourest ideas, and the sour idea was offered to me as the sweetest epiphany…I must admit I liked it at first, but I eventually realized that everything he said was nothing more than an agent of religion(Christianity), and quickly my stomach began to churn, as I vomited the poison from my consciencness.

He betrayed me, I trusted him, and all I got was a head full of religion.
For that I will never forgive him.

Anyway, it seemed to me that he would start off with seemingly logical ideas and then change them into a religious end, he took ideas from ealier philosophers and whored them, he took ideas from society and whored them. His parts individually arn’t that bad if your a Christian, but his whole is repulsive.

Sorry…

Rafajafar · December 31, 2003, 6:36pm

I understand that, Nihilist. I felt something very similar to you when I read Kierkegaard the first time.

Then, it sorta dawned on me. He may be attempting to sweeten life, but that doesn’t mean he intends for you to do the same. I read Kierkegaard frequently now. His parables frigging rock my world when I’m feeling down. He has the ability to make me feel that, even if it’s not there, hope is always a reasonable option.

Metavoid · December 31, 2003, 6:42pm

I’ve been wondering what Kierkegaard I should start with. Could you help me, Raf?