Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Who is your favourite philosopher?

Scroll to see replies

I've read Nietzsche's works, and knew he wrote something about Mill, so I needed a quick reference from which to copy and paste. I'm hardly going to go through Nietzsche's entire library for a quote. That's what the internet is there for.

You 'knew he wrote something about Mill'; gosh, what a font of knowledge you are. The fact that the exact quotation you were looking for just so happened to be the first search result for 'Nietzsche on Mill' is interesting, isn't it? The fact that you just lumped it there with no elaboration makes it all the more likely you were just hoping to look good by quoting something Nietzsche said about Mill without really having any intellectual understanding of or allegiance with it.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 21

Martyn*

Original post by Tuerin

You 'knew he wrote something about Mill'; gosh, what a font of knowledge you are. The chances that the exact quotation you were looking for just so happened to be the first search result for 'Nietzsche on Mill' is slim. The fact that you just lumped it there with no elaboration makes it all the more likely you were just hoping to look good by quoting something Nietzsche said about Mill without really having any intellectual understanding of or allegiance with it.

Well, I knew he wrote something about the vulgarity of Mill. So I wanted the exact words and sentence. So I googled it. If it was at the top of the search I cannot be held accountable for that. I might have rushed to post something but it just so happened that the quote I needed was right there at the top. I searched "Nietzsche on Mill".

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 22

Birkenhead

Original post by Martyn*

Well, I knew he wrote something about the vulgarity of Mill. So I wanted the exact words and sentence. So I googled it. If it was at the top of the search I cannot be held accountable for that.

More transparent than Piers Morgan at the Leveson Inquiry

Reply 23

Caedus

I'd say either Russell and Wittgenstein first, followed by A.J. Ayer and A.C. Grayling.

Reply 24

miser

Tuerin stop derailing my thread please. :rolleyes:

Reply 25

The Angry Stoic

Original post by Jacob :)

Socrates!

All I am sure I know is that I know nothing!

Who would neg Socrates :'(

Reply 26

.Scout.

Either Bergson or Sartre.

Reply 27

Redolent

Another vote for John Stuart Mill here.

Reply 28

Birkenhead

Original post by miser

Tuerin stop derailing my thread please. :rolleyes:

I prefer to think of it as development

Reply 29

Martyn*

Original post by Tuerin

More transparent than Piers Morgan at the Leveson Inquiry

If you say so, Tomás de Torquemada.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 30

Dragonfly07

There really aren't many philosophers that I like or respect, but Epicurus is pretty cool

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Reply 31

lindie

I've really enjoyed reading Iris Murdoch (who is known more for her novels than her philosophy), even though I don't completely agree with her moral philosophy.

Some quotes I've liked:
"Freedom is, I think, a mixed concept. The true half of it is simply a name of an aspect of virtue concerned especially with the clarification of vision and the domination of selfish impulse. The false and more popular half is a name for the self-assertive movements of deluded selfish will which because of our ignorance we take to be something autonomous."

"The ordinary person does not, unless corrupted by philosophy, believe that he creates values by his choices. He thinks that some things really are better than others and that he is capable of getting it wrong. We are not usually in doubt about the direction in which Good lies. Equally we recognize the real existence of evil: cynicism, cruelty, indifference to suffering. However, the concept of Good still remains obscure and mysterious. We see the world in the light of the Good, but what is the Good in itself?"

Reply 32

MalteseMalteser

Oakeshott:
'The cure is not worse than the disease'
'The world is boundless and bottomless'

Reply 33

Melancholy

Original post by Martyn*

Like Christianity? Kant's moral imperative was like a Christian 'thou shalt'.

That really doesn't do justice to Kant's moral philosophy, tbh. The Bible does not specify any sophisticated reasoning behind its commandments, whilst Kant develops a system for deriving morals.

Kant and Rawls both articulate a hugely interesting normative principle, imo. For moral and political philosophy, respectively, they're immensely influential.

My favourite philosopher is John Rawls - all his essays up to and including his book on 'A Theory of Justice'. After than he goes downhill by conceding too much to opponents. His work on the original position thought experiment, rather than his principles, are perhaps his greatest legacy.

Reply 34

Birkenhead

Original post by Dragonfly07

What is 'evil' would come under scrutiny; also the idea of lesser evils and the greater good. The abrahamic would probably say something like 'we cannot comprehend His grand plan for the universe, but He does have one'

Reply 35

Birkenhead

Original post by Martyn*

If you say so, Tomás de Torquemada.

Would I rather be a figurehead of the Spanish Inquisition or Piers Morgan?

No-brainer, really

Reply 36

ILoveTehran

Jeremy Bentham : The greatest happiness for the greatest number is fundamental for morals and legislation.

Reply 37

Dragonfly07

Original post by Tuerin

That argument would only work in an imperfect world, which would assume that god either intentionally made the world imperfect, or wasn't able to make it perfect in the first place.

Reply 38

Birkenhead

Original post by Dragonfly07

That argument would only work in an imperfect world, which would assume that god either intentionally made the world imperfect, or wasn't able to make it perfect in the first place.

Once again we come to a complex idea - perfection. By human standards the world is imperfect; perhaps in the context of God's grand plan, should one believe in such a thing, it is perfect.

Reply 39

Melancholy

Original post by Tuerin

Mill. Gets to the point of his noble arguments without the pretentious rhetorical crap that Kant, Nietzsche and others are famous for.

Haven't read much of him yet but Voltaire seems good also, and Chomsky too.

I get what you mean about Kant, Nietzsche and so forth, but you have to remember that they're German writers and the translations make their work even more difficult. But then again, I'm told they're equally difficult in their original languages. They also come from a fundamentally different educational background to English philosophers.

Mill is more plain-speaking, but even then he's very ambiguous - there's no single uncontested interpretation of Mill. People tend to understand his (Rule-) Utilitarianism and his Harm Principle (how they are reconciled is a complex business), but there is a lot more happening in On Liberty than what is usually quoted.

For example, Mill believed that it was fine to criminally punish people for getting drunk if they had previously been convicted of a crime whilst being under the influence. Being drunk, per se, doesn't harm anybody until you commit an act, yet Mill still wants the state to intervene here.

He also believed in punishing people who did not offer help to somebody who was dying near them - imposing positive duties on others, coercively forcing people to do things.

The harm principle is qualified by a whole host of complex (often seemingly contradictory or irresolvable) restrictions, which puts to rest any attempt to paint Mill as a Libertarian.

Yet Mill's waffle is different from Kant's waffle, because Kant's seems less conversational and more abstract and (perceivably) pretentious. But the substance of Kant's work (and his ideas) is, in my opinion, much more interesting and influential once his daft and needlessly complex metaphysical commitments have been flushed out.