Who is your favourite philosopher?

Scroll to see replies

Only somebody who has no understanding of Nietzsche's work could say he was a clown.

Only someone with no understanding of the concept of opinion could say that disregarding others' opinions was necessarily symptomatic of lack of understanding of these other opinions

Reply 81

Noxious-Nikki

Marx. I can't pick holes in his philosophy the way I can with others.

Reply 82

jkap

Wittgenstein, it's not even close.

Reply 83

Birkenhead

Original post by Noxious-Nikki

Marx. I can't pick holes in his philosophy the way I can with others.

These other philosophers being your younger siblings, then? Marx is riddled with holes

Reply 84

josh_cook

Original post by Tuerin

Only someone with no understanding of the concept of opinion could say that disregarding others' opinions was necessarily symptomatic of lack of understanding of these other opinions

For someone who denounces Nietzsche for his "pretentious rhetorical crap" you seem to be quite fond of spouting it yourself.

Reply 85

Noxious-Nikki

Original post by Tuerin

These other philosophers being your younger siblings, then? Marx is riddled with holes

Oh i'm sure there are holes, there are holes in everyones arguments. But Marx feels right to me.
I think i'll avoid a philosophical debate tonight, i'm too sleepy, so i'll say 'hell you're probably right', renounce my beliefs and fall asleep.
:tongue:

Reply 86

RoyalBlue7

My second favourite philosopher is myself because he's thinks a lot like me and his view of the world according to my professional opinion is close to perfect.

As to the third its hard to say. Most philosophers think alike.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 87

miser

Original post by StUdEnTIGCSE

As to the third its hard to say. Most philosophers think alike.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't know, they disagree on almost everything.

Reply 88

Birkenhead

Original post by josh_cook

For someone who denounces Nietzsche for his "pretentious rhetorical crap" you seem to be quite fond of spouting it yourself.

You might notice I was adopting your own pretentious phrasing to point out how ridiculous it sounded. Youch. As for what I was saying, I note you aren't actually arguing with the point, cheap and bitterly ironic insults aside.

Reply 89

josh_cook

Original post by Tuerin

I just think you're sorely missing out if you dismiss Nietzsche so readily.

Keep in mind that Nietzsche's style of writing is due to his rejection of any systematized thought. If he replicated a traditional style of Philosophical writing, it would be undermining to his own Philosophy.

Reply 90

Aries1992

I had a book introducing Philosophy recommended to me (on TSR actually) and I'm enjoying it, however, I am struggling a little I will admit.

I'm just wondering if anyone else was like this initially and if anyone has any further books to recommend (for a Newbie) I'd appreciate it :smile:

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 91

LadyHaha

Swinburne - "Eschatologically verifiable"

Reply 92

Birkenhead

Original post by josh_cook

What I was referring to when I said that was the excessive rhetoric I feel is in his work. It doesn't contribute anything to his arguments, it only dilutes them and makes me suspect he's trying to compensate

Reply 93

josh_cook

Original post by Tuerin

I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's something to complain about - there's some really beautiful language in Nietzsche!

Reply 94

AtlasCanTakeIt

Original post by Aries1992

I think Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' is a great overview. Obviously keep in mind it's a philosopher analysing, and at times critiquing, the work of other philosophers.

If you're British, I think starting out reading the work of native English speakers is a good idea. Language and culture effect written work and can influence understanding.

Someone above made a completely asinine comment about Russell's popularity amongst philosophy students, as if to say one is a philistine for appreciating his work.

Nonsense.

In my opinion, obviously.

Reply 95

Aries1992

Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt

Thank You!

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 96

Martyn*

Original post by Melancholy

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.

I think kant does his own injustice to his own philosophy. Look. Kant's categorical imperative is a moral judgement. The spirit in which Kant philosophised was that of a Christian.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 97

nb0

dostoyevsky <3

solovy'ov is rather good fun, too.

Reply 98

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

I have read an excerpt about Bertrand Russels 'The Impact of science on society' which was very interesting. If I have enough time, I will read his biography to understand why he is so popular with British.