Page 1 of 3
#1
Not really a thread about debating Philosophy like the Religion and Philosophy thread, just who's your favorite philosopher or intellectual. I throw intellectual in there to widen the choices a bit, so it doesn't have to be someone who just does philosophy, it can be a scientist, politician, economist, etc. (maybe it's not the best word to use, but oh well).

Anyways, I'm sure a lot of you can tell by my posts that I'm a big fan of Peter Singer (utilitarian, animal liberation supporter, and I'm not sure if he considers himself a Marxist, but I think he definitely shares a lot of those views). I agree with most of his ideas about ethics, although I'm not sure if I'd call myself a utilitarian. A lot of people seem to misunderstand his ideas, though. But whenever I hear him talk about something philosophical outside of ethics, I don't agree with him that much.

With economics and politics, I've always liked listening to Paul Krugman.

And with more scientific philosophy, I like Stephen Wolfram's ideas (although he's kind of a douche) and other digital physicists, although I'm not really as interested in more scientific philosophy as I used to be.

Post away, Gangstas.
#2
J.S. Mill, Sartre and Chomsky so far.
Last edited by blue_strat at May 30, 2010,
#3
Ayn Rand...

>_>


Seriously though, I find Carl Jung's work to be fairly interesting.
#4
Myself. Because I am the only person that knows what they are talking about.


</obvious joke>

I want to say Oscar Wilde, but I don't actually think of him as an "intellectual" but rather one of the few people that understood that all people are pretty dang stupid.
#7
Reading Camus and Kafka turned me into the douchebag I am today.
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
//////////////////////////////////////HEALTH
#8
Stephen Hawking by a land slide. I guess his is more scientific, but he has some religious theories as well.
daytripper75

Bullieve


Quote by Amuro Jay
I'm gonna need specific instructions again on how to properly dance with my pants on my head.
Quote by lolmnt
First you put your pants on your head.
Second you dance.
Third you wipe off all the pussy.
#9
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Alexander Pope, and Sir Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton imo is the ****ing man.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#10
Quote by The Madcap
utilitarian, animal liberation supporter, and I'm not sure if he considers himself a Marxist, but I think he definitely shares a lot of those views


If he is a utilitarian then he is definitely not a Marxist since Marx was quite hostile towards Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism in general. Looking at Singer's wiki page he seems to be some green nut, so I'm not sure how you inferred that he was in any way "Marxist".

Although I generally only regard actual revolutionaries like Lenin to be Marxists, since being an academic Marxist kind of misses the whole point of Marx. But I digress...

EDIT:

Just realised I should probably post some kind of list. Anyway yeah, as you can see I'm pretty heavy on Marx. I think he was quite possibly one of the greatest social thinkers of all time. But Marx wasn't really an "intellectual", and regarding him as such sort of misses the point. Thinking about it, I don't really like that many pure intellectuals. Apart from maybe Noam Chomsky.
.
Last edited by Nietsche at May 30, 2010,
#11
I like hearing philosophies and thoughts from the people I know and meet. No particular favorites as everyone is human and has error, ignorance and brilliance.

Minds that preach equality, mutual and general respect (what I believe creates true freedom), the true value and cost of money. Not so much a fan of religion in general although it can be very interesting to talk and learn about. Sociology is fun.. and insane.
I Survived The "Silent Deftone Cocksucking Forum"!-August 15th, 2006
Last edited by dez_cole at May 30, 2010,
#12
Ben Franklin.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#13
Quote by Nietsche
If he is a utilitarian then he is definitely not a Marxist since Marx was quite hostile towards Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism in general. Looking at Singer's wiki page he seems to be some green nut, so I'm not sure how you inferred that he was in any way "Marxist".

Although I generally only regard actual revolutionaries like Lenin to be Marxists, since being an academic Marxist kind of misses the whole point of Marx. But I digress...
In his books he shares some sympathizing views with many of Marx's ideas and has wrote an introduction to Marxism.
#14
Chomsky and Foucault for me.

Quote by mcjosh
I think Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud are cool.

Never read any of Jung's own writings, but I like his ideas. They're absolutely Looney Tunes, but they're cool to think about, and are fun to apply to literary criticism. Same goes with Freud, except in a different way. And then there's Lacan, who makes absolutely no sense at all.
Last edited by Holy Katana at May 30, 2010,
#15
Quote by The Madcap
In his books he shares some sympathizing views with many of Marx's ideas and has wrote an introduction to Marxism.


Right, but the main thrust of Marx's work is nothing to do with academic fields. I mean sure I guess you could interpret him as a sociologist or an economist or whatever but it kind of loses everything if you do that I think. Marx's main point is that he's a communist revolutionary. He says that the the question of wether abstract thought is true is purely scholastic, and that men have to prove the truth of their thinking in practice. Capital is a substance with a social, material existence. You can demystify it, but you can't debate it and hope it goes away. You have to overthrow it directly. Marx is trying to demystify capital in order to overthrow it's rule. That's why he also directly involves himself in the political milieu of his time. Academics who merely "sympathise" with Marx and talk about his work, interpreting him as a sociologists or an economist or whatever aren't in any sense "Marxists" because they fail to get the overarching thrust of the work.

Actually just to clarify, what exactly does he sympathise with in Marx?
.
#16
Niccolo Machiavelli. His work in The Prince was amazing. I like how authoritarian he was without being a communist.
-JBSwreckfest
#17
Pascal for one, his wager concept is cool. Pythagoras aswell.
Check out my Tumblr
Quote by Victory2134
The world seemed like a better place when I didn't know what racism, genocide, and the internet was.
#18
Pascal's Wager is a load of bullshit. It presupposes that you can fool an omniscient god, which you can't, given the meaning of the word "omniscient."

Quote by jbswreckfest
Niccolo Machiavelli. His work in The Prince was amazing. I like how authoritarian he was without being a communist.

It's arguable that communism and authoritarianism are completely incompatible. Especially if we're talking about communism as the final state of human society, in which case they absolutely are.
Last edited by Holy Katana at May 30, 2010,
#19
Quote by Nietsche
Right, but the main thrust of Marx's work is nothing to do with academic fields. I mean sure I guess you could interpret him as a sociologist or an economist or whatever but it kind of loses everything if you do that I think. Marx's main point is that he's a communist revolutionary. He says that the the question of wether abstract thought is true is purely scholastic, and that men have to prove the truth of their thinking in practice. Capital is a substance with a social, material existence. You can demystify it, but you can't debate it and hope it goes away. You have to overthrow it directly. Marx is trying to demystify capital in order to overthrow it's rule. That's why he also directly involves himself in the political milieu of his time. Academics who merely "sympathise" with Marx and talk about his work, interpreting him as a sociologists or an economist or whatever aren't in any sense "Marxists" because they fail to get the overarching thrust of the work.

Actually just to clarify, what exactly does he sympathise with in Marx?
Can't really remember. It's been a while since I've read Singer, and don't know that much about Political theory, but I think I remember reading a small part of Practical Ethics where he seems to share a similar critical view of Capitalism as Marx.

But again, I barely know anything about Political Theory so I wouldn't really put much weight on my posts about this.
#20
Quote by Holy Katana
It's arguable that communism and authoritarianism are completely incompatible. Especially if we're talking about communism as the final state of human society, in which case they absolutely are.


Engels liked to put on an authoritarian guise just to annoy anarchists because he thought they were basically childish.

I would argue that you can't really see Marx in terms of "libertarianism" or "authoritarianism" because the question of liberty or authority doesn't really factor in anywhere in Marx. Marx is a humanist. He is concerned with the basic question of what humans are in essence and how this essence is distorted by the various institutions of capitalism.
.
#21
Dworkin as he's the most important jurisprudential voice of the last 30 years, and Bentham because he was not only a bad boy for life, but is a bad boy for death from his box.



Bitches love the cane.
Last edited by webbtje at May 30, 2010,
#22
Quote by Holy Katana

It's arguable that communism and authoritarianism are completely incompatible. Especially if we're talking about communism as the final state of human society, in which case they absolutely are.

I would say they are very compatable. Authoritarianism is a belief in a strong, almost unnopposable government, which is necessary for a communism to work. Authoritarians are also opposed to a great sense of individuallity. In communism everyone is supposed to be equal, so it seems like a lack of individuallity would fit perfectly.
Just how I see it, feel free to correct me.
-JBSwreckfest
#23
I appreciate very deeply the religious musings and existential probings of German born author Herman Hesse
Quote by ultimatedaver
We're just trying to help man, cause it doesn't seem like you can get any pizza.
#24
Quote by jbswreckfest
I would say they are very compatable. Authoritarianism is a belief in a strong, almost unnopposable government, which is necessary for a communism to work. Authoritarians are also opposed to a great sense of individuallity. In communism everyone is supposed to be equal, so it seems like a lack of individuallity would fit perfectly.
Just how I see it, feel free to correct me.

Communism is a stateless, classless society. There's no government at all. And don't go into the whole "but it doesn't work" thing, because socialism has never been successfully implemented on a large scale, and you can't just skip socialism and go straight to communism. An interesting thing about socialism that most people don't know is that socialism doesn't entail equality. It's fair, but not necessarily equal. Communism is equal, but only in a socioeconomic sense. There's a difference between private property and personal property.
Last edited by Holy Katana at May 30, 2010,
#28
Will Rogers
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
#29
Quote by Conformist
Pascal for one, his wager concept is cool. Pythagoras aswell.

Pascal had a nifty triangle, but his wager was a load of BS. If there was a god, and he supported that sort of believing-just-in-case bullshit, I wouldn't want to worship him anyways.
I think we took too many drugs when we were kids,
'cause now we like to make
Weird Music
-Wayne Coyne
#30
Ayn Rand lolololol.

Even though I don't agree with Dostoevsky's religious stuff, his philosophies were pretty good, so he's pretty cool.
#31
It's hard for me to say which is clearly my favorite. Depends on what kind of reading I'm doing I guess.

David Hume
Bertrand Russell
Karl Popper
John Maynard Keynes/Joseph Stigliz
Mr. Butlertron are you A handsome B smart C scrap metal or D all of the above
Scangrade thats easy I'm A and B but not C, so it can't be all of the above, but you can't fill in two ovals Nooo!
Mr. Butlertron the answer is C... you fuckwad
Last edited by greatone_12 at May 30, 2010,
#32
Quote by iantheman
Pascal had a nifty triangle, but his wager was a load of BS. If there was a god, and he supported that sort of believing-just-in-case bullshit, I wouldn't want to worship him anyways.
I thought that he didn't take the wager seriously and didn't expect it to be taken seriously?
#33
Quote by The Madcap
I thought that he didn't take the wager seriously and didn't expect it to be taken seriously?

If so, that's as it should be. I don't really know
I think we took too many drugs when we were kids,
'cause now we like to make
Weird Music
-Wayne Coyne
#34
Quote by Holy Katana
Communism is a stateless, classless society. There's no government at all. And don't go into the whole "but it doesn't work" thing, because socialism has never been successfully implemented on a large scale, and you can't just skip socialism and go straight to communism. An interesting thing about socialism that most people don't know is that socialism doesn't entail equality. It's fair, but not necessarily equal. Communism is equal, but only in a socioeconomic sense. There's a difference between private property and personal property.

Thankyou
-JBSwreckfest
#35
Immanuel Kant
G. E. Moore


Mostly because of their work with ethics
Sail upon the open skies
#36
Henry David Thoreau
Carl Sagan
My first lolstack
Quote by whitenihilist




If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
#37
Hume with his work in skepticism and Naturalism.
Camus and absurdism
Marcus Aurelius
Henry david Thoreau

As for more sciencey (besides Hawkings): Mendel, and Darwin.
#38
Emmerson and Teilhard de Chardin I take the most after. Teilhard specifically is my favorite.

Also, I do love Ayn Rand.
My God, it's full of stars!
#40
Quote by Nietsche
If he is a utilitarian then he is definitely not a Marxist since Marx was quite hostile towards Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism in general. Looking at Singer's wiki page he seems to be some green nut, so I'm not sure how you inferred that he was in any way "Marxist".

You're such a runt. Bentham is not the utilitarian benchmark, and Marx's opinions on utilitarians do not preclude utilitarians from being marxists.

Singer is a respected contemporary moral philosopher. A cursory glance at his wikipedia article and you dismiss him as a green nut? Your user name suits you -- all of Nietzsche's arrogance, none of his wit.


On topic, I don't have a favourite.
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
Page 1 of 3