Post: #1

Name some of your favorite classic philosophers.

WIA

Post: #2

Arthur Schopenhauer is not only my favorite philosopher but also my favorite writer in general. He's the one philosopher I would recommend as a read to someone who isn't interested in philosophy but who just enjoys good literature. His main interest is metaphysics but for me at least he's illuminated my understanding in so many other areas. I don't think I've read anyone else that has written about the appeal of art, especially music as well as he has. Nietzsche came close with his "The Birth of Tragedy".

Post: #3

The only philosopher I like is Daniel Dennett.

I am going to pick up some Richard Rorty soon as well. Since I am interested in checking out his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. I am going to check out some of the latest works from Colin McGinn as well - since he is also a very clear writer.

I have never enjoyed the classic philosophers that much. It could be because Charles Darwin is the most important thinker in philosophy (even though he was a scientist) - and most other philosophers have either ignored his work - or were too busy being dead to take notice of it.

One of the things I like about Daniel Dennett's work is how he places evolution at the very centre of philosophy. There is no part of philosophy that evolution does not touch on.

And remember - if you are not familar with The Baldwin Effect - then your understanding of evolution is pretty shallow. I only mention this because to many people think parroting the phrase 'survival of the fittest' is all there is to understanding evolution. And pointing out an ingenious theory like The Baldwin Effect is a useful corrective to those people.

Evolution has many fascinating avenues - many of which are still not well known by the public (and other philosophers).

As for the classic philosophers. I am suspicious of them all as a grouping. Since people like Nietzsche are considered one of the greats. Which is odd to me since I always thought Nietzsche was overblown and pretty unreadable.

Although the funny thing with Nietzsche was that he was familiar with Darwin's work and mentioned it in print. But for some reason he hated Darwin.

I just don't know where to start with Nietzsche. His reputation is baffling to me.

So - whilst I do enjoy studying the classic philosophers. I tend to do so in the spirit of studying intellectual history, and the history of ideas. Very little of it really speaks to me on a philosophical level.

For instance - Schopenhauer wrote on a lot of topics (such as women) where I find myself agreeing with him completely. But to me - such asides - are just opinions which I happen to agree with. And are not (to me) philosophy.

Since - I consider philosophical discussion to be separate from other types of intellectual discussion - since the goal is to rigorously put forward an argument or attack another. With the use of logic, reason and arguments - as opposed to statements which are made without any supporting arguments.

Actually - one of Colin Mcginn's latest books is on the nature of philosophy. So - I will wait till I read that before I try and clarify in my mind the exact differences between philosophy and other types of discussion.

Sorry - that my response is not of more use. I too am interested in the classic philosophers, and would find it interesting to hear how others respond to their work.

Also - I find there are weird personality cults around some of the classic philosophers. For instance - many people with a casual interest in philosophy seem to be in love with Nietzsche.

And many people with a serious interest in philosophy seem to be in love with Wittgenstein.

And as such I am a little sceptical about some of the claims made about the work of such people. Since it is often done in the spirit of trying to promote a hero (who speaks to them like a favourite indie band might) as opposed to trying to objectively analyse a person's work.

Lastly - with the rise of academic philosophy over the past century - it becomes harder to read the classic philosophers.

Most papers in philosophy today are reviewed and argued over by dozens of people before seeing print. And when they do see print - it is expected that any mistakes will be immediately challenged and rebutted in a very short space of time.

As such - the community acts to ensure a rigorous set of standards which are expected to be met when publishing philosophy.

Which is different to philosophy in the past when unsupported statements could be made - and a flowery writing style used to put forward something which was more akin to a poetic vision as opposed to a strict philosophical argument.

For better or worse. Somebody like Nietszche, Plato or Hegel wouldn't even get past the first year of a standard philosophy degree course at university.

Post: #4

I am interested in metaphysics. But always approach such topics with a wary eye since most it is probably bollocks. And will never be proved one way or the other.

Indeed - metaphysics has pretty much died off over the past hundred years in academic philosophy.

And it is because of this culture that I sometimes feel distanced by those philosophers writing in the past. Since they often trampled over areas of metaphysics which very few philosophers would feel comfortable tackling today. Since it is do difficult to analyse these topics with rigour.

So - to add to the above - that is something else I find a little off putting about alot of the 'classic' philosophers.

Post: #5

Jack Handey.

Post: #6

Nietzsche is a baws. I've heard some good things about Shopenhauer, definitely need to check some of his stuff out.

Post: #7

Your English right? The whole English philosophical empirical tradition from Locke all the way up to Hume to the analytic philosophers have been distrustful of metaphysics regarding it as mushy. It's the tradition that gave rise to people like A.J. Ayers who who wrote an entire book to expel metaphysics from philosophy and to reduce philosophy to nothing more then logic and analysis so I'm not surprised that you would have such an attitude towards lots of classical philosophy. And yeah I do realize Ayers got his ideas from the Vienna Circle but there's a reason why the English speaking world still embraces their ideas while their influence seems to have died down in their native country. The English is a race of businessmen, capitalists, craftsman - practical people in general so it's not shocking that they would tend to have a common-sense worldview and a huge dislike for fluff.

I think we talked about Bryan Magee in another thread and my attitude towards philosophy is pretty much the same as his. Analytic philosophy IS useful and logical analysis is indeed of great importance to philosophy but it's not all of philosophy and should only be regarded as a tool. I remember over and over in the book he kept going on about how he felt like he was out of step with philosophy as it was taught in Britain. He seems to have the exact opposite view that you do of philosophy in that he loves the classical canon and has a distrust of academic philosophy, regarding much of it as provincial and being done not out of love for knowledge but just as a way to build one's reputation in academic circles.

As for metaphysics, I think it's like art in that it's one of those things you "get" or you just don't. Some people just don't have an ear for it. I guess it's kind of like how some people involved in disciplines such as mathematics and engineering would regard literature or poetry as superfluous and can't understand why people would be so enthralled by it. If you are a logical, analytic person then you are naturally going to be distrustful of something that cannot be reduced to cold, bare logical facts and can't be explained clearly. My view however is a lot of of reality and life simply cannot be reduced and broken down to that level. At best you can only point it out via metaphor or allusions or art and even then it's a easy to make the pitfall of mistaking the pointer for what it is pointing to if that makes any sense. I guess a good mental example of this is the visual image of Wittgenstein saying how his words are only a ladder to carry it's reader to higher level and once they use that ladder to climb above - the ladder must be discarded as it would have no use at that point and be just a burden if you carry it around.

Post: #8

As for Nietzsche, just as a disclaimer the only whole works I've read by him is The Birth of Tragedy and The Case of Wagner. Besides that I've only read excerpts and skimmed through some of his other books so take my opinion with a grain of salt if you want.

I think the appeal of Nietzsche is that he really knows how to hit a nerve with the angry, young middle-class male set. If you look at people who are really into Nietzsche who are not academics you'll see a big portion of his fans fit that exact description. He's basically the philosophical equivalent of punk rock - loud, passionate, and not dense or complex enough to bore people. A lot of his writings are done in the forms of aphorisms which is perfect for the modern young guy with the 30-second long attention span. These guys are filled with so much testosterone and pent-up frustration that they wouldn't be able to sit down for long periods of time and absorb something like the classical philosophers so Nietzsche is perfect for them. Nietzsche also has a tendency to rant and lash out a lot and of course there's nothing more then an angry young guy enjoys more then a rant.

My current thoughts on Nietzsche is that he's hugely overrated and that many people enjoy his works more for the feelings that it draws out of them rather then it's actual content. I think people enjoy his works more on the artistic level then on an intellectual level. That said, I do think The Birth of Tragedy was a good book with worthwhile ideas though I think a part of my reason for that is that it was written early on and before he really started to go into his ranting and raving phase. What he has written about slave morality is very insightful and still provides insight today - especially when it comes to understanding leftists and SWPL types.

Post: #9

As for modern academic philosophy being superior to classical philosophy because it is peer-reviewed, I'm going to have to disagree with that.

Peer review is essential for subjects such as the physical sciences and mathematics. However the nature of philosophy is very different from that. I would instead say it's much more like an art - after it is classified as a humanity at universities. And like most art, the best of it is done by eccentric, other-worldly geniuses that don't fit into the usual paradigm. Many of the influential and ground breaking philosophy has come from people outside of academia. Spinoza, Descartes, Locke, Hume...none of these guys were academics. Kant would be the exception to this. And like most good art, it is a product of intense passion and often misunderstood when it first comes out since it doesn't fit in with the current paradigm. Would The Beatles have benefited from being scrutinized and peer-reviewed by other bands? I think philosophy is one of those things you really do have to ignore the haters and just blaze head and hope that you are understood in time. And yeah this means there's going to be a lot of cranks but everyone and then someone shines through.

Is this to say that people who are academics in philosophy aren't intelligent? No, I would say that most of them are very intelligent. However, to use the art comparison again, philosophy is a subject where just being good or even very good isn't enough. You have to be a true genius to really make worthwhile contributions to it - just like how there are many people who are good guitar players or painters but those people still end up forgotten while only the very top of their field is remembered. This is opposed to say science or engineering where you can still contribute a lot even if you are just good and not a genius.

Post: #10

For me it´s Epicurus:

http://philosophyforlife.org/philosophie...picureans/

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...curus.html

Post: #11

I prefer the ancient philosophers to modern philosophy. They were bold in their approach practicing philosophy as thinking about everything and anything significant to our existence. The ancient philosophers lived in ubber alpha male societies. Socrates was praised for his bravery in war and Marcus Aurelius was the Emperor of Rome. Their point of view is invaluable to recovering betas in an age where manliness is under unrelenting assault. As for logical rigor, Nagarjuna, the most important Buddhist philosopher, went places in 200 A.D. that the modern philosophers haven't even considered yet.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/

Post: #12

Thanks for the responses, Wutang. Really interesting stuff...

I kinda' agree with alot of what you say. Except - after you read academic philosophy for awhile (ie most of the stuff from the past 100 years) it does make you a little more hesitant to dive into the waters explored by philosophers from previous generations. Since - the stuff these days is so tightly argued (with every sentence prepared in such a way that it can be defended from counter-arguments).

So - in a way - the classical philosophy often feels like a different field altogether. Like comparing chess with poker.

Anyway - I am not sure where my future interests will lie. I find academic philosophy fun since it is stimulating and fun to watch people argue at such a high level of abstraction.

And as for the philosophy of the past. Whilst I think it can be good. I seem to veer more to the position of Karl Popper. He was believed there was a strange metaphysical component to reality. But - he reckoned it was so obscure and so beyong human reason that there was no point in attempting to try and understand it.

As such - he concentrated his work in much narrower areas of academic philosophy and the philosophy of science.

So - in a sense - his outlook was more wild than alot of other philosophers since he imagined metaphysics was too fucked up and impossible for mere mortals to try and grasp. Of course he had no way of proving that. But that was his gut instinct - and as such he preferred to concentrate on areas that he was sure could be grasped.

Indeed - I remember Richard Feynman saying the exact same thing. And deciding to dedicate his life to physics since at least he would have something to show for it. And he could be sure that it was possible to work productively in such a field.

Albert Einstein and Kurt Godel had similar views as well. As did Isaac Newton (although he happened to be very religious as opposed to philosophical).

All of the above is just to suggest that just because a person is sceptical of the work done in metaphysics - doesn't necessarily mean that they do not believe in other layers to reality.

Alot of people (particularly in science - and often in analytical philosophy) subscribe to the following quote from JBS Haldane (an important evolutionary biologist):

Quote:Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

At the moment - I tend to think along those lines. But with that said - I do enjoy thinking about metaphysics. Not so much the work done by thye classical philosophers. But more the work of people like JM Mctaggert (an 19th century Scottish Idealist). His A-series theory of time is really interesting and clever stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._E._McTaggart

I am not sure how much I subscribe to such a theory. And I am not sure how such work links into that of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. But it is definitely an area I find worth thinking about.

Still - with all that said. I still find the academic work (what little of it there is) done in metaphysics over recent decades to be more useful than that done by alot of the classical philosophers. Particularly since work from quantum mechanics, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and relativity can sometimes be of use when thinking about metaphysical questions. I also find the adherence to academic rigour particularly helpful when addressing arcane metaphysical debates.

But to break it all down. You are correct. It comes down to whether you consider philosophy to be something like a science. Or whether you see it as being more like an art. Daniel Dennett has written brilliantly on this question in the following short article:

http://www.edge.org/conversation/dennetts-deal

Post: #13

Great thread, I'll have to come back to it to pickup some more reading. A little background on how I started reading philosophy and why I'm not surprised that it pops up on this forum. When i was in high school my crazy history teacher says "how many of you would be interested in a philosophy course?" A few raise our hands and the next year he puts one on as an elective. The class is all guys. He ran another course the next year, same demographics. The last year I was in school he ran a contemporary version called world politics in which he stated to the 4 girls in the class of 25 "you will drop this course in a week" and they did because the entire course was studying world war I, II and the cold war.

Anyway, Philosophers that I enjoy: Seneca and Michelle de Montaigne. Seneca had some great observations on women and Montaigne really just wrote about dealing with everyday life, friendship, sex, and personal politics. Across both I found the most amazing parts that these people lived hundreds of years ago but their observations about people are still the same today. Facebook etc has just laid the nature of people out more plainly and quickly than it could be seen in the past.

PS - Alain de Botton and AC Grayling are interesting contemporary philosophers. A little Alan Watts is good too.

Post: #14

Definitely David Hume.

His writings on the Problem of Induction influenced a tradition that has continued through modern times with Karl Popper, George Soros, and Nassim Taleb.

Reading his insights into boredom, introspection, etc. as a young teenager also really stuck with me and made me more interested in the Stoics.

Some of my favourite quotes:

“He is happy whose circumstances suit his temper but he is more excellent who can suit his temper to any circumstances.”


"Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers."


"Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man."


And for the RVF:


"Truth springs from arguments amongst friends."

Post: #15

I'm a big fan of J. L. Mackie's 'Ethics', and have struggled to find a good objection to his error theory.

Post: #16

I am a Kantian.

Post: #17

(06-21-2013 12:43 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Your English right? The whole English philosophical empirical tradition from Locke all the way up to Hume to the analytic philosophers have been distrustful of metaphysics regarding it as mushy. It's the tradition that gave rise to people like A.J. Ayers who who wrote an entire book to expel metaphysics from philosophy and to reduce philosophy to nothing more then logic and analysis so I'm not surprised that you would have such an attitude towards lots of classical philosophy. And yeah I do realize Ayers got his ideas from the Vienna Circle but there's a reason why the English speaking world still embraces their ideas while their influence seems to have died down in their native country. The English is a race of businessmen, capitalists, craftsman - practical people in general so it's not shocking that they would tend to have a common-sense worldview and a huge dislike for fluff.

I think we talked about Bryan Magee in another thread and my attitude towards philosophy is pretty much the same as his. Analytic philosophy IS useful and logical analysis is indeed of great importance to philosophy but it's not all of philosophy and should only be regarded as a tool. I remember over and over in the book he kept going on about how he felt like he was out of step with philosophy as it was taught in Britain. He seems to have the exact opposite view that you do of philosophy in that he loves the classical canon and has a distrust of academic philosophy, regarding much of it as provincial and being done not out of love for knowledge but just as a way to build one's reputation in academic circles.

As for metaphysics, I think it's like art in that it's one of those things you "get" or you just don't. Some people just don't have an ear for it. I guess it's kind of like how some people involved in disciplines such as mathematics and engineering would regard literature or poetry as superfluous and can't understand why people would be so enthralled by it. If you are a logical, analytic person then you are naturally going to be distrustful of something that cannot be reduced to cold, bare logical facts and can't be explained clearly. My view however is a lot of of reality and life simply cannot be reduced and broken down to that level. At best you can only point it out via metaphor or allusions or art and even then it's a easy to make the pitfall of mistaking the pointer for what it is pointing to if that makes any sense. I guess a good mental example of this is the visual image of Wittgenstein saying how his words are only a ladder to carry it's reader to higher level and once they use that ladder to climb above - the ladder must be discarded as it would have no use at that point and be just a burden if you carry it around.

^ Are you me?
I'm sure i could have written this post, more or less, on another day - with a little less clarity and a little more bumbling mumbling style. Still, here or there.

Post: #18

(06-21-2013 12:53 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Nietzsche....... A lot of his writings are done in the forms of aphorisms which is perfect for the modern young guy with the 30-second long attention span. These guys are filled with so much testosterone and pent-up frustration that they wouldn't be able to sit down for long periods of time and absorb something like the classical philosophers so Nietzsche is perfect for them.......

My current thoughts on Nietzsche is that he's hugely overrated and that many people enjoy his works more for the feelings that it draws out of them rather then it's actual content.......

What he has written about slave morality is very insightful and still provides insight today - especially when it comes to understanding leftists and SWPL types.

Hmm..... you aren't me. Your dislike of Neitzche can be attributed to not reading his work, for, if it happens to be anything else, it means you are just wrong.

I've edited to suit.
Indeed, much of Neitzsche's work is done in the form of aphorisms and, as you observed, it draws feelings out of the reader, as opposed to instilling them (a case of abstraction between two things that are the same, i know). This 'drawing out of feeling' , which is a wonderful turn of phrase you have used, is precisely what Neitzsche wanted to do. These were not Chinese sweet wrapper wisdom throwaways. These were carefully concocted expressions of sagacity (often). Neitzsche didn't expect them to be read once. The aphorisms, by definition, were short and succinct yet to be read several times and contemplated and reflected upon afterwards until the meaning was drawn ouf of you..... that's to say, the revelation was already inside you and the aphorism would just help to bring it out.

Like that day when you are 15 and you realise, in laymans terms, that logic is a failure of a method because logically, once negated upon, everything returns to nothing. You 'why' away everything.

Well, just like that revelation is drawn out of you, as though it were always inside you, the same happens with a plethora of other revelations. Neitzsche just enables and helps the process.

And Neitzsche is often discredited as being a philosopher not of this world, speaking of morality above and beyond, a superman type, and so on. Yet, his work has huge practical everyday of this world (2+2=4 type) benefits too. Just as you pointed out, for his insight into slave morality.... indeed. To say it is insightful is misleading. It was revolutionary and its effects are still being felt everywhere. Its impact is yet to be truly guaged. It is, by my reckoning, the most revelatory piece of psychological insight ever. It's not merely the revelation of its development but the subconscious level of cunning that preceded it. I test somebody to provide another psychological insight as revelatory.

Post: #19

I have some interesting philosophy links. I will work through them and post the best ones here.

First of all - here is a fascinating article that was recently republished in Slate.com

Quote:In the July/August 2001 issue of the late, great magazine Lingua Franca, James Ryerson published an enthralling article about an anonymous benefactor who was paying professors huge sums of money to review a strange 60-page philosophical manuscript. Slate editor David Plotz talked about “The Mystery of the Millionaire Metaphysician” on this week’s Political Gabfest, citing it as one of his favorite magazine articles of all time. Ryerson gave Slate permission to republish the story in full.

http://tinyurl.com/7og9mjb [using a tinyurl link since the forum software always messes up the links to slate.com]

Post: #20

Read the article and now I'm looking at the site for the foundation that Marc Sanders (the "millionaire metaphysician" in the article) set up. Guy kinda reminds me of Schopenahuer - from a rich background and didn't have to worry about the usual day to day BS the rest of us have to deal with so he's had lots of times to work on his pet project. I wonder if 40 years down the line it'll turn out that he did make a big breakthrough in philosophy in the same way Schopenhauer was ignored by the academia until the end of his life.

Funny thing, I actually was trying to look for a copy of this guy's work and on his own website, the links to it are down.

Post: #21

I would love to hear more about peoples thoughts on Wittgenstein.

He is an engimatic thinker. At times he is inspirational. But at other times a bit dull - and repetitive.

Also - his later work is basically saying that all philosophical problems are pseudo-problems which arise from tangling up concepts and misusing language. Which is why there has being no progress in philosophy over the past 2500 years.

Anyone subscribe to this hardcore view? And how come Wittgenstein's reputation is on the decline? At my Uni - he was the hero of all the lecturers and professors. And I assumed that was the same elsewhere.

But apparently not...

Post: #22

Just came across this joke.

Quote:So, the chair of the physics department goes to the Dean to ask for $1 million for a piece of equipment. The Dean complains:

"Why can't you folks be like my mathematicians? All they need is a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket? Or why can't you be like my philosophers? All they need is a pencil and paper!"

Post: #23

What about your personal philosophies?

Post: #24

I might not be the wealthiest guy in the world. And I certainly have expensive tastes. So - one way I try and save money is to make zero effort in trying to impress other people.

When it comes to status goods I don't give a shit. And - I like to think that has saved me money (and energy) over the years.

It helps that I am MGTOW - so I don't even have to care about impressing women.

Not philosophy exactly. But it is a worldview which is important to me.

Post: #25

(06-21-2013 02:04 PM)cardguy Wrote:  So - in a way - the classical philosophy often feels like a different field altogether. Like comparing chess with poker.

Some people have criticized the whole philosophical field as becoming too mathematical. What that means is that you can have people working in a field A and know nothing about field B at all, like in mathematics where it's so specialized that it's not unusual to have this happen.

I think Roger Scruton has criticized philosophy along this line in that he more or less says that philosophy can be weighed down in technobabble in some minute area of study and the questions can seem completely irrelevant to our notions and questions of humanity.

I think this is why some people like classical philosophy more than modern because it seems more connected to our humanity.