I see this alot. I find it strange to adopt hitlers philosopher’s ideas who failed. Why do people choose to follow others and adopt thier ideas rather than trying to use their imaginations to come up with their own creations and ideas?
Seems like it would be more worthwhile to develop your own idea that failed, rather than someone elses who failed. Is it because people are afraid to question and point out mistakes of the authorities/gods they have chosen for themselves?
I am just curious.
Many, many people, most, in fact, develop their own ideas (which fail) instead of following in the footsteps of anyone who came before. Perhaps what you should be asking is, how come we rarely ever hear of them.
Saludos Judas I,
This is a rather original question. In many cases, people choose to follow the philosophies of their idols who failed simply because they think they can do better than them. In other words, they actually do point out the mistakes of their heroes. These individuals are quite certain that their idols would have been succesful if only they had carried out their plans slightly differently. Thus, they think they can correct their idol's mistakes and be successful in executing the essential idea of their idol's philosophy.
This reminds quite a bit of a movie called “The Believer” where the protagonist admired Hitler but could quickly point out his flaws and give solutions on how to improve them.
Also, at times it seems that every philosophical idea has been proposed. That there is simply no room for innovative ideas and philosophies. It’s hard to think of something without simultaneously be concern about plaigarism. I think this is why perhaps people believe it’s easier to be loyal to a stablished school of thought.
Edher
Hi all. To comment on these questions, let me reflect on my educational life.
When I went to Liberal Marxist University, I had an intro philosophy teacher who said that Marx-Leninism had been disproved, but not other forms of Marxism. (In his defence, Marx did propose it would take several forms of the implementation to get the final, perfect Communism.)
Later, when I went to a Great Books school, the premise was that the Great Thinkers, even if not always right, made great errors. Learning these, we debate on the main turning-points of philosophical options…even if there are other, novel arguments, as we might find here online, these give us a good start.
In a way, I suggest, basic philosophy is limited in it’s options; but in some cases, people will agree with a line of philosophy and, avoiding plagiarism by attribution, develop other topics based on the principles they follow – which may include developing applications of theoretical doctrine into the practical, like political science, ethics, or art theory. Here I mainly consider the Aristotelian and Platonic schools.
mrn
hitler’s philosopher? do you mean heidegger? or are you under the mistaken impression that hitler followed nietzsche? hitler misquoted, took out of context, and horribly misapplied nietzsche’s work… hitler was no nietzschean…
and as far as “new” ideas are concerned, there hasn’t been one since 4000 b.c.
-Imp
I won’t re-invent the wheel in this thread, hence, I ask, why re-invent the wheel?
Alright, fine – enough with the cleverness – let’s just take Schopenhauer’s thought to begin with (one that I agree with).
To think for oneself, to do philosophy for oneself, and then to go and read about the idea’s you have thought of in other philosopher’s books/essays/etc., is a much more enjoyable and, some would claim (e.g., Schopenhauer), appropriate way to engage with . . . thinking and/or philosophy.
But, some of us, when doing philosophy, are not just looking to discover truths about nature/reality/being/etc., but are looking for practical ideas which can be used, I would think, to enrich one’s life. Some of these ideas, those that seem to enrich one’s life, I would call by the name of, wisdom. Personally, one wise idea that I’ve come to recognize as such, has been the idea that I’d rather read about other people’s mistakes and short-comings and learn from them, hoping to not have to ever re-produce them in my, more or less, real life.
For example, I would rather read about Dumas’ Edmond Dantes, watch him suffer for a lifetime as he plans and enacts his vengeance, and ultimatley goes so far that he ends up regretting his executed, “providential,” justice, then to go through my life and learn the idea through my gut rather than my head.
Now, doesn’t that sound reasonable?
Socrates invented the lightbulb? 
I’m not sure about this at all, Imp, I think you are grossly overstating the case. What about waffles? They didn’t exist 6000 years ago…
I am not limiting this topic to philosophy. This can be applied to our current political disaster. We need fresh ideas and people. Perhaps even a “radical” change. However, this path is widely ridiculed, “new” is looked at like a threat to the old. I just can’t understand why we continue thinking electing a new farmer is going to quell the smell of the pig farm, just because he “promises” to.
What about asking for evidence and a plan to quell the smell? Is that so difficult? When explaining the plan, also it would be important that it be put in simple terms so that every american could understand.
This presents another problem. Most presidents and government officials cannot communicate or relate to the working class and poor majorities. These people cannot understand the jargon-filled language of what their futures hold.
I still hold the opinion that a president should EARN the title by making the majorities lives better and happier. If He stops or is unable to do so, someone else should be given a shot.
no, but edison didn’t invent light sources themselves…
it is dark… we need light… I’ll invent the lightbulb… as if the fire and candles we used for light before didn’t make light… see? the lightbulb wasn’t really a “new” invention… it was just an improvement on the candle… the fire is just burning across a small wire and the intensity of the fire has been increased, but the principle (use) behind the technology is nothing new…
-Imp
oh sure they did… waffles are a variant of bread…
-Imp
My feeling, in philosophy, is that many people did start down their particular path by thinking for themselves. They came up with a few ideas and read some philosophy. Eventually, they discover a philosopher who thinks more-or-less like they do. Where you disagree with this philosopher is almost as important as where you agree, since it gives you a powerful framework in which to build your ideas. Also, in doing this you have the benefit of history, where you can see how this philosophy evolved and changed over time. Sometimes, it will develop in ways that surprise you, but are still illuminating. A lot more can be thought out in 100 years by many people than in fourty by one. As a philosophy ages and matures it becomes more potent.
problem is…a successful philosopher is a dead philosopher. how can it become such a threat to people…it will get you killed, then worshipped?
That has been my goal…to figure out why this strange paradox repeats itself. Why they were killed…then worshipped.
That’s a little Objectivist, don’t you think? There are plenty of philosophers who managed to live quite comfortable lives.
Those who didn’t, well that isn’t too hard to explain:
One of the first things you need to do to create a cult is to create an alternate economy. By assigning value to things (objects/actions) that aren’t within the mainstream, you isolate yourself and your group quite effectively. The flip-side of this, is that once you’ve assigned value to something which is essentially worthless, you are doomed to poverty because you will focus your energies on a non-marketable product.
So, now you’ve got an isolated group that is difficult to control because normal measures won’t work on them. Many of these groups also have a strong anti-establishment bent to them. So, if this group grows, it becomes a threat to the establishment. How do you take care of that? Well, eliminating the leader usually helps.
It is usually an aid for one to grasp external sources to develop ones own philosophies. While it is not necessarily needed, it can be a great help.
As for the worship of dead philosophers and the adopting their ideas rather then comming up with ones own philosophies… Well, what can be said? …we are not all leaders, now, are we?
I disagree completally. To me, for instance, a successful philosopher is simply one who has come up with ones own philosophies. Though I supose such opinons rely on our various definitions of success.
I cant say that I know, but I would believe that the answer to this would lie along the lines of the fact that once a philosopher is dead; he cannot refine his philosophies, and so, worshippers may bend them to their will.
That was my take as well…a dead revered successful philosopher can be a powerful puppet, when they are unable to speak for themselves.
Should this ever happen in the USA? Or on the internet? Can you imagine the results?
That is why I hold the opinion that a successful philosopher is a dead one. Because they care more about the little people and the truth more than their own lives. I define that as “success”.
Is there a difference between philosophy and curiousity?
do you know how to make the left tremble with fear?
“my favorite philosopher was jesus”
-Imp
What do you mean by that Imp?
I thought they banned you. 
LOL
that was a quote from bush in the debates that made the democRats have a cow…
-Imp
It’s an incredibly ironic statement given that Jesus as a philosopher was closer to socialism of the loosely Marxist kind that many Democrats favour than any other broad political philosophy…