(December 6, 2017 at 6:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: The Dude, of course.

I love Dudeism. You'd think it's just a joke religion but Big Lebowski has a lot of lines that parallel Taoist philosophy.

I no particular order: Aquinas (big surprise there!), Sartre, Plotinus, David Bentley Hart (mostly for aesthetics) - although I admire others for their lesser contributions such as Kierkegaard (ethics), Schopenhauer (also aesthetics), & Nagel (mind). Despite my frequent posts on metaphysics and ethics, some of you may be surprised that I am most interested in aesthetics.

Oh dear! Aquinas is an embarrassment to philosophy!

(December 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I might choose Aristotle over Plato and his mouthpiece Socrates, since he contributed so much to the foundations of science.  Plato/Socrates always struck me as being as much rhetoricians (a dirty word as I use it) as philosophers, though that might just be the fault of the manner of Plato's exposition.  

Y'know, I've found that you're either an Aristotle guy or a Plato guy. Sure, there are some Greco-philes out there who enjoy both, but usually people tend to like one over the other. I'm a Plato guy.

To me, Socrates is more than just Plato's mouthpiece. He's the provisioner of the fundamental dialectic which we still use today in philosophy. You can toss out a lot of stuff that Plato and Aristotle said because it is ... well, wrong. But Socrates pointed out that we should always delve deeper into our understanding, and through the process we learn more and more about our own perspective.

I disagree that Plato and Socrates were rhetoricians. In fact, they were opposed to the sophists who taught people how to be convincing speakers and treated truth as something relative. To convince others that something was true was an empty pursuit. Plato thought that there was one capital T Truth, and thought that philosophers ought to be committed to discovering that instead of convincing others to agree with persuasive argument. Now Aristotle had some pretty neat ideas, and he took a more hands-on and naturalistic approach to philosophy. I've found that he is far more popular than his teacher, Plato. I admit, he does make more sense than Plato sometimes.

(December 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Someone who isn't really a serious academic philosopher but made a big impression on me before I studied it in college, was Alan Watts.  If you liked Thoreau and James you might also like Watts, though Watts' woo as a percentage of his writing was much higher.

I like Watts. I haven't read a whole lot of him, but I rather like what I have read. I saw a few videos of him speaking on youtube. Good stuff. As for "woo," I will tolerate it from someone, but it's not something I ever personally dig. James might fit the bill for being woo woo, but I think it's a stretch. I don't get that from Thoreau at all. He refers to nature as the divine object, but this isn't in relation to some deity or cosmic force; it is divine all by itself. He's not talking about spirits, ectoplasm, or anything spooky like that. He's talking about the actual rocks and actual trees, earth, and rivers. These things filled him with spiritual fervor, but not because they were related to anything supernatural. "Natural" was good enough for Thoreau.

(December 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I might like to include Hume and I always felt like I should have read Wittgenstein, but too late.  All I read now is novels and honestly, I've probably gotten just as much out of it.  Though if I hadn't of studied philosophy I might never have gotten my head out of the clouds.

I like Hume a lot, but I've only read a few essays of his. Never read a word of Wittgenstein, but he's come up in conversations/lectures. He sounds quite interesting.

---

(December 7, 2017 at 12:40 am)inimalist Wrote: Beat this phony jesus cat by 5 centuries!

Confucius beat him by five centuries as well:

"never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself"

---

(December 7, 2017 at 11:58 am)Hammy Wrote: Oh and Socrates and Epicurus.

Also Karl Popper. Especially for his endorsement of negative utilitarianism.

I'm getting into Popper. I plan on reading his work in political philosophy. "Enemies of the Open Society" or something like that. Negative utilitarianism sounds really cool too. I hadn't heard of it before your post, but I googled it, and it makes a lot of sense. Why do you like the theory? Does it stand up to arguments that plain old utilitarianism can't?

(December 7, 2017 at 11:58 am)Hammy Wrote: And I guess one specific idea by Edmund Husserl had a bigger impact on my life than any other philosopher. He is the founder of phenomenology. And understanding phenomenology along with Kant's seperation of the phenomena and noumena, has influenced me more than anything else. By itself that idea allowed me to 100% avoid the paradox of hedonism forever.

Wow. You know your metaphysics, dude. I am somewhat familiar with Kant's phenomena/noumena (I'd have to refresh my memory) and I'm fascinated how it might relate to hedonism or utilitarianism. Kant's ethics are not consequentialist, that much I know. I'd be interested to hear how his metaphysics relates to a brand of ethics he rejects. (I'll click on the link you left at some point.) I've read a good bit of Kant (not as much as you, obviously). But I haven't read any Husserl at all. Anything you can recommend which is a decent introduction to his thought?

(December 8, 2017 at 7:19 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(December 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I might choose Aristotle over Plato and his mouthpiece Socrates, since he contributed so much to the foundations of science.  Plato/Socrates always struck me as being as much rhetoricians (a dirty word as I use it) as philosophers, though that might just be the fault of the manner of Plato's exposition.  

Y'know, I've found that you're either an Aristotle guy or a Plato guy. Sure, there are some Greco-philes out there who enjoy both, but usually people tend to like one over the other. I'm a Plato guy.

To me, Socrates is more than just Plato's mouthpiece. He's the provisioner of the fundamental dialectic which we still use today in philosophy. You can toss out a lot of stuff that Plato and Aristotle said because it is ... well, wrong. But Socrates pointed out that we should always delve deeper into our understanding, and through the process we learn more and more about our own perspective.

I disagree that Plato and Socrates were rhetoricians. In fact, they were opposed to the sophists who taught people how to be convincing speakers and treated truth as something relative. To convince others that something was true was an empty pursuit. Plato thought that there was one capital T Truth, and thought that philosophers ought to be committed to discovering that instead of convincing others to agree with persuasive argument. Now Aristotle had some pretty neat ideas, and he took a more hands-on and naturalistic approach to philosophy. I've found that he is far more popular than his teacher, Plato. I admit, he does make more sense than Plato sometimes.

In terms of readability, I'm a Plato guy too.  But I think of Socrates as Plato's alter ego, the badass he'd like to be if he didn't have aspirations.  But lets face it, Plato's pure forms is just ass backwards.  Understandable though that he should be overawed by the labyrinths of language at the dawn of reason.  Meanwhile stodgy old Aristotle is just grinding through the actual and laying the foundation for science.  While it isn't as inspiring it is pretty admirable in its own way.

(December 8, 2017 at 7:19 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(December 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Someone who isn't really a serious academic philosopher but made a big impression on me before I studied it in college, was Alan Watts.  If you liked Thoreau and James you might also like Watts, though Watts' woo as a percentage of his writing was much higher.

I like Watts. I haven't read a whole lot of him, but I rather like what I have read. I saw a few videos of him speaking on youtube. Good stuff. As for "woo," I will tolerate it from someone, but it's not something I ever personally dig. James might fit the bill for being woo woo, but I think it's a stretch. I don't get that from Thoreau at all. He refers to nature as the divine object, but this isn't in relation to some deity or cosmic force; it is divine all by itself. He's not talking about spirits, ectoplasm, or anything spooky like that. He's talking about the actual rocks and actual trees, earth, and rivers. These things filled him with spiritual fervor, but not because they were related to anything supernatural. "Natural" was good enough for Thoreau.

My favorite thing by Alan Watts is "The Wisdom of Insecurity".  Funny I started reading some Watts when I was actively shopping for woo, but that book helped me lose that interest.  Now I look to nature and literature for my transcendent moments and don't crave the concentrated version they try to distill in the spiritual book section.  

(December 8, 2017 at 7:19 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(December 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I might like to include Hume and I always felt like I should have read Wittgenstein, but too late.  All I read now is novels and honestly, I've probably gotten just as much out of it.  Though if I hadn't of studied philosophy I might never have gotten my head out of the clouds.

I like Hume a lot, but I've only read a few essays of his. Never read a word of Wittgenstein, but he's come up in conversations/lectures. He sounds quite interesting.

I remember reading the early Wittgenstein's "Tractatus" in which he probably thought he had unpacked all the good bits of consciousness as a systematic hierarchy of facts.  So weird.  Then after a period away from philosophy I hear his later works are all about helping others find their way out of their fascination with the hall of mirrors which is language.

I haven't read much Hume either but what I did read was such fresh air after sloughing through Kant.  Funny how when reading Kant my sentences started growing to paragraph length.  *shudders*

Socrates was better than Plato.

Socrates had some cooky ideas but at least he did a lot of relentless questioning. And he was very humble too, he only knew that he knew nothing, etc.

I prefer a lot of the pre-socratics to either of them too.

And yes, Aritstole was hugely influentical and right about a lot of things. Although he was also wrong about a lot of things (and he thought flies had four legs!) . . . and philosophers after him improved upon him.

(December 8, 2017 at 8:21 am)Hammy Wrote: And yes, Aritstole was hugely influentical and right about a lot of things. Although he was also wrong about a lot of things (and he thought flies had four legs!) . . . and philosophers after him improved upon him.

Some people have defended Aristotle on this. You have to admit, it is unlikely that Aristotle could not count to six. I've read the offending passage with some apologetics that said Aristotle might have taken the flies front two legs to be "arms" (We all have noticed how flies rub their two front legs together like hands.)

Oh interesting point.

He's still wrong about some stuff though

But he is fucking amazing and the modernist of modern science and logic is founded upon his principles.

---

(December 6, 2017 at 6:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: (Spinoza fights with James for the number 5 slot.)

Spinoza is great!

I like the Jamesian theory of emotion but other than that... meh.

(December 8, 2017 at 9:09 am)Hammy Wrote: Oh interesting point.

He's still wrong about some stuff though

But he is fucking amazing and the modernist of modern science and logic is founded upon his principles.

---

(December 6, 2017 at 6:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: (Spinoza fights with James for the number 5 slot.)

Spinoza is great!

I like the Jamesian theory of emotion but other than that... meh.

Between Spinoza and Descartes, give me Spinoza.  Descartes' questioning doesn't seem sincere, more of a set up for an answer he's eager to peddle.