your favorite philosopher is…
it seems that every one on this forum (well the vast majority) seem to be influenced by Nietzsche and regard him as the best, i just want to take a poll here
sorry if i forgot ur fave ones
please tell me ur fave and why, or just tell me who it is,
Nietzsche; basically for the distinct lack of bullshit in his ideas on morality and human nature etc (unlike Kant and Plato who were full of it). everything about his work that i have read so far is right on target with how i already feel about the world, morality, religion etc. so i enjoy reading his work as well.
definitely my favourite philosopher
Definitely a destroyer and a nihilist, sometimes one must destroy in order to build one’s own acropolis.
Herpes The Fourth Worst is my favorite philosopher.
A master of Kung Fu, he resides in a garage, ready to strike with wit, fire fist, and E minor.
A truely legendary figure.
I have a fan. Welcome.
---- nietzsche.
nietzsche is a phoney.
is there not a difference between the way he wrote and the way he lived his life?
as far as i know (and that is not much, but not less than some people here), nietzsche was good at writing with a puffed up chest, but was everything in real life that he wasn’t in his writing. which makes him a phoney, doesn’t it?
vive la kant.
Monooq,
Why does the author have to live his works? The idea that one must be identical to what one writes betrays the readers addiction to consistency and A=A.
To say that there Must be some linkage between the author and his work, that the author’s work must be bonded with the author is pure Platonism, directly out of the Cratylus. It is like saying that the word is the thing, the map is the territory, the model is the reality. This ain’t so. Words aren’t tied to their signifieds. The author/signifier isn’t tied to his work/signified.
This is like saying that George Clooney can operate on kids because he plays a pediatrician On TV
George Clooney is an actor… he acts however he does and we don’t criticize him for it because it is his job to be an actor, a faker, a phoney.
Nietzsche isn’t an actor. He’s a philosopher. If he says one thing, and lives another, that makes him a phoney.
And why would I think about his philosophy as a way to live my life… when he didn’t, couldn’t, whatever.
Say whatever you want about plato whatever… i didn’t get that.
Nevermind.
Voltaire?
Locke?
Hobbes?
Over Hume??? And Wittgenstein and Aristotle??
Voltaire’s not even a philosopher, and I don’t think even someone who agrees with Hobbes would call him their favorite.
I swear Locke is the most verbose and overwritten philosopher in history. Reading his “Essay” just drove me bats. And he made not a few philosophical mistakes. Granted you have to respect the guy for being the first modern empiricist, but his ideas were clarified and greatly improved upon by Hume.
heh…no worries…I’m just messing around.
But…my favorite? My ONE favorite?
Hume of course.
I agree Nietzsche is played out (especially on this site); he’s a fascinating read nonetheless.
Kierkegaard’s hilarious.
Love Wittgenstein.
Quine kicks ass, but you kinda have to be a behaviorist to really sweat him.
Anscombe certainly makes you think.
Kripke and Searle: interestingly wrong.
Davidson: interestingly right.
So, uh…to answer the question…it’s one of those.
i’d like to just add (without providing too much detail or getting into a major off-topic discussion) that the idea that Kant is more “real” or less “phony” than Nietzsche is hilarious just because neither of those assertions are really verifiable. not to sound like a positivist… but how could you tell? and further, (a la hermes…) why would it matter? i think its ridiculous to expect that philosophers adhere to some sort of “moral standard” or “way of living” that ties into their writing. unless you’re fixated on the idea of philosophy and philosophers as necessarily “moral” or “ethics-bound” individuals. which they ain’t. not always, anyway.
“I contradict as has never been contradicted before and am nevertheless the opposite of a No-saying spirit.” -Nietzsche from Ecce Homo: Why I Am a Destiny
here’s my list, in no particular order:
Sartrefor the record, i fucking hate Kant. I think his meta-physics isn’t bad (phenomena, noumena) but his “morality” is the worst pile of shit i’ve ever read in my life.
“categorical imperative”; honestly believing that morality is objective and trying to prove this with ‘a priori’ rationalisation
it’s absurd and if you don’t believe me, ask your average person what they think of hitler then go ask a neo-nazi what he thinks of hitler. one believes he did the wrong thing whereas the other believes he did the right thing.
morality is subjective which is why the categorical imperative is flawed in so many ways
Most professional philosophers rightly regard Kant as the best (meaning most original, creative, intellectually subtle and powerful) thinker of modernity, possibly EVER in the two thousand or so years of the Wesern philosophical tradition. Kant did not find it necessary to philosophize with a hammer; he had the intellect to get his message heard. 
Wheeee modernity!!! get your guns and militarism ready we’re going to take Reason to all those Dark and Savage places, give those poor injuns and darkies some Reason. I’m not so sure I’d be trumpeting modernity from the city walls.
HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
i like them both, as far as style goes. but nietzsche’s themes hit closer to home. and the fact that professional philosophers LOVE kant means nothing. its no surprise that the faculty of academic institutions (themselves ambassadors of reason and modernity) just love his stuff. don’t get me wrong, i like it too… just sayin’.
A lot of professional philosophers prefer Hume, by the way.
However, you can’t really understand the last 200 years of philosophy without understanding Kant.
But I agree that his moral philosophy has big problems. Especially his view of moral motivation.
The fact that both think they’re right is BS! It makes no difference to your point that morality is subjective. It just means that ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. Which one?
Well, if you are like me… and think that genocide is universally wrong. Then its hitler. And I think i’m universally right. But that doesn’t make me right. And the fact that we may never know of any universal laws doesn’t mean there aren’t any. I personally believe that we should make our own universal laws and enforce them on EVERYBODY.
It may be that there are only one or two or a few universal moral wrongs…
But on my list I put the following: genocide. infanticide. rape. thats all.
Disagree if you want.
just like Hitler did. he honestly thought the jews were a threat to the world and wanted to make the eradication of them into a universal law.
i know what you mean, a harder more enforced order on the world would sort it out (none of this freedom of speech/religion crap cuz it can lead to nazi’s and cults) but for that to be implemented into the whole world, it would take World War III or the eradication of at least America
you don’t have to start WW3. you just have to condemn such things as universally immoral.
becuase sometimes. it is not worth killing so many people to save so many people from being killed.
and also. as far as i know hitler didn’t actually believe the jews were the cause of all the world’s problems or whatever… he thought they could be used to get him in power and keep him there. to deflect problems upon.
but even if he did… it doesn’t make genocide not universally immoral… it just makes hitler wrong.