Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Favorite Philosopher and Why?

Page 2 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Nov 2011, 10:06 am

Gedrene wrote:
Socrates.
Though only referenced through Plato.


You have overlooked Xenophon.

ruvey



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

12 Nov 2011, 3:47 pm

Immanuel Kant. He talked about our inability to see the universe in an objective way because we are subjects of the universe.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Nov 2011, 5:17 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
Immanuel Kant. He talked about our inability to see the universe in an objective way because we are subjects of the universe.


Kant's synthetic a priori is bogus. No such thing.

ruveyn



kurai
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 9 Nov 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 73
Location: germany

12 Nov 2011, 8:35 pm

Husserl (phenomenology !), Nietzsche (yeah his rants are hilarious), Kierkegaard (haven't read much, but i love the leap of faith concept .. ), there are more but i am so bad with names. -.-



DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

12 Nov 2011, 8:54 pm

John Stuart Mill


But then I am a stinking liberal. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill



KnarlyDUDE09
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 685
Location: Manchester, UK

12 Nov 2011, 8:55 pm

John Locke

Why?
...because

1. His reasoning for "Religious tolerance"- (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity. John Locke, Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92)

2. His belief that societies should be "civil" and that the "State of Nature" is a rather materialist bi-product of human nature and is a discredit to humanity; (not so much in those words.)



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Nov 2011, 9:11 pm

DC wrote:
John Stuart Mill


But then I am a stinking liberal. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill


The word "liberal" had a different meaning in Mill's day.

ruveyn



DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

12 Nov 2011, 9:16 pm

ruveyn wrote:
DC wrote:
John Stuart Mill


But then I am a stinking liberal. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill


The word "liberal" had a different meaning in Mill's day.

ruveyn


Depends what side of the pond & political spectrum you are on.

JSM would have thought Randian style libertarians and free market fetishists were completely nuts. The USA is the only country I know of where liberal/communist/socialist/root of all evil/satanist are all used interchangeably.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Nov 2011, 4:35 am

DC wrote:

Depends what side of the pond & political spectrum you are on.

JSM would have thought Randian style libertarians and free market fetishists were completely nuts. The USA is the only country I know of where liberal/communist/socialist/root of all evil/satanist are all used interchangeably.


The liberals brought it down on their own heads. They should have stood up and told the Emperor he was buck naked. They didn't and the libertarians did.

ruveyn



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

13 Nov 2011, 8:04 am

ruveyn wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Immanuel Kant. He talked about our inability to see the universe in an objective way because we are subjects of the universe.


Kant's synthetic a priori is bogus. No such thing.

ruveyn


No I think a priori is valid.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Nov 2011, 9:53 am

Robdemanc wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Immanuel Kant. He talked about our inability to see the universe in an objective way because we are subjects of the universe.


Kant's synthetic a priori is bogus. No such thing.

ruveyn


No I think a priori is valid.


SYNTHETIC a priori. Mathematics is a priori but it is made up from whole cloth. It has no synthetic (empirical) content.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

13 Nov 2011, 10:44 am

ruveyn wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Socrates.
Though only referenced through Plato.


You have overlooked Xenophon.

ruvey

I can't believe that I am saying this but I believe that Plato was more reliiable than Xenophon.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

13 Nov 2011, 10:46 am

ruveyn wrote:
DC wrote:

Depends what side of the pond & political spectrum you are on.

JSM would have thought Randian style libertarians and free market fetishists were completely nuts. The USA is the only country I know of where liberal/communist/socialist/root of all evil/satanist are all used interchangeably.


The liberals brought it down on their own heads. They should have stood up and told the Emperor he was buck naked. They didn't and the libertarians did.

ruveyn
Really? An interesting concept since the Randians simply ripped the Emperor's clothes off and denied that he had any.



Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

21 Nov 2011, 12:00 pm

G.E. Moore for his clear and systematic style. He also didn't propound some abstruse metaphysical theory that is impossible to defend like Hegel or Leibniz.



Last edited by Telekon on 21 Nov 2011, 12:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

kxmode
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

21 Nov 2011, 12:05 pm

I like Philosoraptor.

Image

He says witty things. Like...

Image
Image
Image

Genius! 8)



Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

21 Nov 2011, 12:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Immanuel Kant. He talked about our inability to see the universe in an objective way because we are subjects of the universe.


Kant's synthetic a priori is bogus. No such thing.

ruveyn


No I think a priori is valid.


SYNTHETIC a priori. Mathematics is a priori but it is made up from whole cloth. It has no synthetic (empirical) content.


"Synthetic" is a linguistic term. A synthetic proposition is any non-tautological proposition. In other words, you can't justify a synthetic proposition merely by examining the meaning of its terms. You have to look outside of the statement for its justification, either to sense experience (a posterori) or to rational insight (a priori). It is not an epistemic term like a priori or a posteriori. If "synthetic" meant "empirical" then Kant would have been saying that mathematics was justified by the senses and the intellect at the same time.