Both may be contributors to the pool of human knowledge, but they don’t qualify within the ‘philosophy’ category. Many Physicists discuss philosophical issues, but we cannot classify them as philosopher-proper unless they have extensive philosophical works to show.
There are no Absolutes of ‘good’ or anything.
It is up to us to arrive at a consensus of a set of rational criteria.
Being in a philosophical site, it is obvious we must discount first glance superficial unjustified popularity.
I have not produced a list of criteria but implicitly it would have included the following with certain weightages for specific criteria;
Revolutionary philosophical theories -justified and soundly proven
Extensiveness and range of involvement in philosophical topics
Completeness, efficiency, systemacity, etc.
Specialization, academic, [to vary weightage for these]
Practically and contribution to humanity
Extent of potential in time [less weight is only specific to an era]
Use significantly in the modern era
?? Etc. [to list]
We should prepare a list of criteria with relevant weightages and obtain consensus before we proceed. The resultants will thus be qualified to the criteria, conditions and terms agreed upon.
In addition, those who participate should have a reasonable depth of knowledge of the philosophies of ALL the nominated philosophers.
On this basis there is objectivity amongst those who agree to the criteria and on the proviso we do our best to remove biasness. I believe this process is rational and easily acceptable.
At the end of the day, what counts is sound verifications and justifications with reality.
As I mentioned, I would ignore popularity and charisma.
I would also exclude religions, especially dubious theistic religions based on an illusory god which are not verifiable. Else I could bring in the Buddha, and other Eastern religious ‘philosophers’ who in my opinion is the greatest of all times in terms of theory and practical in terms of its potential for the future.
Your postulations are wishful thinking.
I can name Pythagoras of Samos: a² + b² = c², this is every relevant in modern times, yet you can’t mention 1 single thing that has relevance for our modern times, only the predecessor to our modern understanding of things, which isn’t the same.
But if you are speaking of compulsive writers, then i dunno, and don’t care.
You failed to understand the function of philosophers and that is why you simply cannot comprehend the contributions made by Kant in comparisons to other genuine philosophers.
Philosophers are not inventors or discoveries of mathematical or scientific theories like
a² + b² = c², or E = MC².
One of the purpose of philosophy and task of philosophers is to revolutionize and systematize thinking about reality. In the past many has the wrong and false representation of reality and it is the task of philosophers to put this right with sound justifications.
Note I wrote this in the OP and you do not seem to pick on it.
Kant improved on [and corrected] the philosophies of the ancients prior to his time up to Hume and changed the entire world by providing a new of thinking about how the human mind relates to the world [and reality].
For more details read here. oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/ … /kant.html
You mentioned Pythagoras whose supposedly significant contribution is in the sphere of Mathematics/Geometry but not philosophy. Even then, his contribution is doubtful and vague.
In ancient Greece math was indeed a branch of philosophy, besides we still have a saying “the cure must not be worse than the illness”, or something, that’s a saying lasting for over thousands of years, still in use today and still perfectly valid.
Even if Pythagoras can’t be credited the equation is still valid and still useable, what of Kant are still useable today?
When they derive independent ontological structure with precise detail that is so very accurately reflective of reality, they are far more philosopher than you will ever be.
So why don’t you ever do that?
What is that, merely one out of eight attempts?
There you go with the sheeple socio-political criteria again. Have you ever even thought of anything else?
On that “basis”, you get nothing but bias.
Close, but actually it is “verifications and justifications with wisdom”. Truth is only the initial part of the puzzle and goal.
You haven’t yet. It seems that is the only reason that Kant is your favorite.
Oh but of course, else you would be “biased” and bigoted.
I think Kant is a bit overrated. I’m not going to jump-the-gun and say he is irrelevant, but just over-hyped. I think Nietzsche deserves the spotlight more than he does; he pretty much sticked his middle-finger up to the entire philosophical pantheon, stabbing the belly of all those darling, didactic moralists — contributing to the formation of postmodernity.
Note Ontology is merely a sub-topic of Philosophy that comprised, Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics [sub- Ontology], Ethics and General. In addition, ultimate ontological claims are impossible.
Their ‘ontological’ claims cannot be independent of their own inherent human framework and conditions as countered by Kant’s Copernican Revolution.
Note I proposed a list of criteria which is open-ended and subject to consensus.
As I said, I proposed a list of criteria which is open-ended and subject to consensus. If you do not agree, then provide your criteria for discussion.
Theistic elements don’t count as they are very bias and based on emotions.
Theistic elements are handed down by an infallible God.
In this case, you would be claiming god to be the philosopher.
God’s messengers are merely puppets on strings.
The fact is God does not exists.
The Buddha and other non-theistic philosophers relied on their own reflective thinking and experience, and they are not God’s loudspeakers.
Jesus, Moses, Paul, Muhammad were claimed to be philosophers. Note my point above.
God’s messengers are merely puppets on strings.
And God does not exist.
That is YOUR naive unprovable and un-demonstrable philosophy. Again, it is back to “what is good is whatever I personally like”.
… you just don’t get it.
Truth and wisdom are not subject to “consensus” any more than mathematics. Is “2+2=4” only when the majority vote it to be true? Is “A <> A” if they decide that it isn’t? Was the Earth really flat merely because most people thought so?
Haha … “propose\d whatever you think is right … as long as I think so too.”
.,.according to your naive theory (handed down by fallible propagandists).
That would depend on whether I said that God did the writing or whether God merely did the inspiring. Did Gravity propose the existence of gravity or did gravity inspire Newton to propose it?
Haha … again, unlike your communist propagandists.
Like you would have a clue.
Irrelevant.
You talk as if you actually had an interest in rational thought. When you first came here, I tested to see if that was real because I would enjoy such a discussion. It wasn’t. And more than that, although you propose logic, you showed that you know nothing about it and can’t distinguish logic or rational thought from your own biased stubbornness and anti-religion propaganda. They have a familiar phrase to explicate that condition; “You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground”. - strictly metaphor of course.
But if you ever really want to discuss real philosophical concerns, void of your prejudices, Kant worship, Communist agenda, and blindness, let me know.
I agree Kant’s popularity is over-hyped and underrated because most people who think Kant is great do not understand the full extent and essence of his philosophy. They just follow the respect most serious philosophers had for Kant.
There is no denial amongst ‘serious’ philosophers (after Kant and heavily criticize his other principles) who would acknowledge Kant as the father of modern philosophy based on his very famous work, i.e.
-the reconciliation of Empiricism and Rationalism which had been going in parallel lines since the times of Thales.
The above whilst significant is merely one of Kant great contributions to the philosophy community.
To appreciate the full extent of Kant’s work, one may have to put in considerable time which some have claimed one need 3-5 years of sustained reading and reflections. Personally I have invested a lot of time to study Kant’s work and it is still work in progress and I need to put in more time.
IMO, the greatest work besides the specific philosophical concepts, ideas and theories, what is great about Kant is he ‘teaches one how to fish’ by providing a very extensive and well structured philosophical framework for one to philosophize reality.
One of his claims;
The soundness of Kant’s philosophies is that they are parallel and comparable to the core principles of Eastern philosophies intellectually.
Since Eastern philosophies has been successfully in the practical fields, so Kant’s philosophy has a lot of room to be extended to the practical and actual human actions.
I have read most of Nietsczhe’s major books and he is great but I did not sense anything extraordinary great in his works. Nietsczhe acknowledged Kant’s contribution to philosophy in certain areas and at the same time criticized Kant heavily is other areas. However, I noted he missed certain critical nuances of Kant’s work that are critical to make full sense.
Discuss philosophy with you?? your sense of philosophy is so skewed by the following;
I note you are heavily driven by the existential dilemma and philosophically you are a mere desperado like a cornered wounded tiger trapped inside a very tall silo.
Your throwing silly defenses and drivels above out of desperation to deflect the pains & sufferings you bring to yourself is one result of it.
As far as my approach is concern, I don’t give consideration to ‘who’ but as long as there is any philosophical worth in any point raised by anyone, then I will respond [within the rules of this forum] and that is only for my own sake, i.e. to refresh the philosophical ideas I have. I am not here to please anyone or meet their expectations.
That would be fine if you actually knew anything concerning my philosophizing … which you don’t. And that reflects, as I said, your own prejudices and biases (without even hearing what you are criticizing).
You shouldn’t talk to yourself in public. It’s a bad sign related to that psychosis you keep preaching about … [size=85]always accusing of their own guilt[/size].
“Why is Kant the greatest philosopher?
Because he preaches my perverse agenda!”
Actually, everyone is missing the obvious choice. Who awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumbers?
Easy choice for the greatest philosopher of all time and it ain’t Kant.
BTW, has anyone here actually read Kant? His critique might be the most badly written book
of all time and that is in English which actually IMPROVES his book. In German, it is a complete and
total mess. He uses jargon and overwritten crap to say nothing.
In that sense, Hume may be the best, and the worst. It may be unwise, to awaken a slumber, an idlyll, where, creation it’s self has perhaps not intended to go toward.
Hume was going to be my answer. The OP seems to assume that, since he built upon the ideas of Hume, Kant was ultimately the better philosopher, which I think is mistaken. Hume wasn’t great because he influenced Kant; he influenced Kant because he was already great.
It’s the Emperor’s New Cloth with Kant and so many other weird philosophers, they get blinded by fancy wording, and thinks all this nonsense actually have meaning.
… you just don’t get it.