I have had to cut the shortlist from 20 to 9, please complain if I made the wrong choices.
If you can't decide on greatness, please just vote your favourite. )
Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:32 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:41 PM
Confucius? Lao Tzu? Hegel? Locke? Rousseau?
I am proudly
What no Socrates and/or Plato?
stacking the deck.
You slipped that in late. Democritus wasn't on the list (for good reasons I'd imagine)
I am fond of Democritus and Spinoza myself
Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:50 PM
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) "Man was born free but everywhere he is in chains". Philosopher of the French Enlightenment
Ibn-Rushd (Averroes) (1126-98) - Introduced much of Aristotle to Medieval Europe; magisterial commentator on both Aristotle and Plato; also defended philosophy's role in Islam
Parmenides (c.510-450 BC) - Nothing changes, change and motion are illusions of the senses
Simone De Beauvoir (1908-86) Feminist existentialist; tried to make women subjects of their own lives; not objects of men's lives.
Confucius (6th / 5th century BC) - Founder of Confucianism; the highest moral ideal is jen (humanity or goodness) which is achievable by all; the rites and traditions of society are to be followed but not without question.
John Locke (1632-1704) Founder of British Empiricism; the mind is a tabula rasa (a blank canvas) in which knowledge arises from sensation and is perfected by reflection. Science is possible because the senses faithfully represent reality.
Democritus (460-370 BC) - Conceived the atomic theory of matter
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55) - Suffering is necessary; the individual must stand alone against the crowd.
Epicurius (341-271 BC) - All sensations are true; pleasure is our natural goal.
Hildegaard of Bingen (1098-1179) - Medieval theologian who wrote Scivias, 'Know the Way' interpreting her own visions. Also a poet and musician.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831) Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis - the inevitable dialectic of history.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) - people are inherently selfish and need strong governance, otherwise anarchy will reign and life become "nasty brutish and short". Such social contract thinking influenced Rousseau, Spinoza and Locke.
Find out about more philosophers...
Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:57 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:12 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:28 PM
Luckily I'm an Aristotle fan, and he's on the list. I mean, he taught Alexander the great how to take over the world. His ideas work )
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:31 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:40 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:51 PM
[i]"For me Susma is the greatest philosopher] - - Susma
Let me comment in your words:
"Hahahahahaha and Hehehehehehehe"
Now in mine:
Posted 06 June 2005 - 09:59 PM
Um, remind, me, was there any point in dying? [glasses]
If I only succeed in winning one good student, I will die happy.
Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:06 PM
BTW Susma I think you have to be dead to be on the list so self promotion is not allowed. )
Otherwise I am confident Dennet would be a popular favorite here at Imminst. [glasses]
Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:13 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:22 PM
Finally some sense, dead philosophers as all dead creatures are not existing and never were.
Well Susma, let me rephrase it only for you- which information is the most superior to you- the info that would have created person such X, Y, Z, etc... (from Caliban's list)?
Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:23 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:29 PM
Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:35 PM
Because you are stupid or ignorant?
Why are all those in the BBC list and in Caliban's list not by my measure any great at all?
Posted 07 June 2005 - 01:26 AM
Ok, Susma, you've got the idea of who 'were' all these philosophers, now since they've never exited- in 'their' aspects- all we have is the memory and comprehension of such possible people.
Now, which would you admire mostly?
Posted 07 June 2005 - 01:36 AM
Susma, I completely agree. My thought is similar to yours. It's only possible that I'm my own greatest philosopher. Not only do I glorify no one, someone's thought is meaningless until I have the resources to pay them heed.
For a BEC definition: Philosophy is the only tool for developing guidelines about how to think and act non-passively.
Posted 07 June 2005 - 01:39 AM
Posted 07 June 2005 - 01:11 PM
Well, I know books like these already exist, as far as they function to help the lay-reader extract and semi-understand main ideas, points and counterpoints of philosophers. But that’s just to say the thinking is more accessible, not necessarily what you, Susma, might consider useful.
Have you considered? about a simple book exposing the verbiage that says nothing in philosophers who write so monumentally and voluminously, which men in the street know about in their core thoughts from when men started to enjoy relfective thought, I mean those residues of some utitility from the philosopher, if they do say something intelligible in the midst of all the loquacity and dressed-up phraseology.
It sounds to me you’re more interested in business and politics, areas that, right at the outset, generally take for granted that the self is already plenty smart enough to know what it wants, as the intellect uncritically subordinates to truth-distorting physiological revelations and not vice versa. If that still doesn’t sound like you, consider that if philosophy/science is on one side of the intellectual spectrum with business/politics on the other, jurisprudence is in the middle.
That will be a very helpful guide to people like myself who just feel a bit worried that they might miss someting really most useful and insightful for life and the ordering of one's thoughts, by not attending to these philosophers like their herd-ish disciples they manage to gather around them like so many sheep -- which they being the shepherd eventually lead to the slaughter house.
Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:24 PM
Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:37 PM
Perhaps, philosophy should be an inquiry of science, I mean philosophers should do philosophy scientifically, using all the tools of science, starting with being systematically methodical and sticking to a fixed terminology as the inquiry proceeds, not of course excluding the formulation of new terms as necessary
Edited by infernity, 08 June 2005 - 12:40 PM.
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:20 PM
Caliban is annoyed with me and called me ignorant or stupid, because I can't see any one greatest among the philosophers in his list or that in the BBC's list, according to my measure of greatness. He reminds me of the Buddhist master splashing hot tea on the face of his would-be disciple, once and twice; but when the disciple did the same on him, he adjourned the session, collected his stipend, and terminated the master-disciple contract of private lessons. I mean Caliban's annoyability index is low, low for one who does polling.
If he is reading this post, I invite him to pay attention to my qualification.
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:29 PM
Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:31 PM
Posted 09 June 2005 - 01:09 PM
If I had to pick one it would have to be Alfred North Whitehead. Although I don’t use his terminology, his arguments initiated my thinking into how reality is fundamentally signals and that to understand reality is to understand the nature of signals, their relationships, and the nature of the relationships, at both abstract and elemental levels, termed events. From this, it follows that my only role in reality is to understand what I can about it and to rearrange some of its elements and components (given reality is the highest-level system). Although the notions of signals, relationships, and element-component rearrangement are vague, vagueness, if congruently accurate, is the structure for the edifice of precision.
Could we hear a few reasons for your choices?
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users