Turn on thread page Beta

The Worst Philosopher watch

  • View Poll Results: Worst/most hated/disliked Philosopher
    Marx
    15
    13.16%
    Nietzsche
    15
    13.16%
    Rorty
    0
    0%
    Descartes
    9
    7.89%
    Searle
    1
    0.88%
    Berkeley
    3
    2.63%
    Hegel
    3
    2.63%
    Sartre
    6
    5.26%
    Derrida
    8
    7.02%
    Mill
    0
    0%
    Rousseau
    2
    1.75%
    Leibniz
    5
    4.39%
    Pyrrho
    0
    0%
    Socrates
    8
    7.02%
    Turing
    2
    1.75%
    Dawkins
    37
    32.46%

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Ahh no, not the Summa Theocrapicalogica

    Seriously that is the most irresponsible piece of religious literature in the world. The whole no condoms thing isn't a very smart thing for the catholic church to advocate especially since catholicism is a major and growing religion in Africa and South America, which also seem to have high AIDS rates. If the pope really wants to be Jesus-esque he would permit them. And don't get me started on the whole stem cells/IVF embargo. People have a go at Shariah law the whole time, they don't realise that Natural Moral Law, is in someways just as bad. I do not understand how anything in NML is logical.
    I'm not a Catholic and I've been toying with the whole 'no contraception' idea for ages. And I have come to the conclusion that I do think it is a very sensible part of the of the doctrine. The widespread misuse of sex in both the poorest and riches countries in the world is singeing the fabrics of society. So you really think the HIV epidemic can be blamed on Catholicism? Do you really think the first thing that goes through a vigilante soldiers mind in Africa/S.America/wherever as he is just about to rape a young, helpless woman is- oh, I'm a Catholic, x-nay on the contraception? And the availablity of contraception in such countries is not as limited as many think it is. And the reason for the whole stem cells/IVF embargo: maybe the Church could forsee the 'harmeless' hybrid embryo. Where is it going to stop? It's not. We've already started wandering down this scientific blind alley and there is no going back.

    The Pope angers me. The Church angers me sometimes. But this does not equate to Mr. Aquinas being illogical.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H.D.)
    I'm not a Catholic and I've been toying with the whole 'no contraception' idea for ages. And I have come to the conclusion that I do think it is a very sensible part of the of the doctrine. The widespread misuse of sex in both the poorest and riches countries in the world is singeing the fabrics of society. So you really think the HIV epidemic can be blamed on Catholicism? Do you really think the first thing that goes through a vigilante soldiers mind in Africa/S.America/wherever as he is just about to rape a young, helpless woman is- oh, I'm a Catholic, x-nay on the contraception?
    The same way one could say I am blaming catholicism for an AIDS crisis, one could also say you're blaming rape for the AIDS crisis. I believe the catholic church is a contributing factor to the spread of aids in the developing world, but by no means the sole factor.

    And rape isn't the only way aids is transmitted.

    And the availablity of contraception in such countries is not as limited as many think it is. And the reason for the whole stem cells/IVF embargo: maybe the Church could forsee the 'harmeless' hybrid embryo. Where is it going to stop? It's not. We've already started wandering down this scientific blind alley and there is no going back.

    The Pope angers me. The Church angers me sometimes. But this does not equate to Mr. Aquinas being illogical.
    Maybe condoms are available. However the ignorant masses who follow every word the pope says wouldn't buy them even if they were paid to. The problem is the catholic church being a contributing (not sole) factor in the spread of AIDS. And out of interest since when did IVF = chimerism? The paranoia of some religious people beggars belief, really what are you all so scared of? That science just might end up doing a "miracle" on the scale of the divine and people will realise god is obsolete and humans can do just as well?

    If you still believe stem cells are wrong, I urge you to read this so you can see what a difference they made in one mans life. Jesus would not approve of such legalistic deontological ethics as natural moral law shows.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Aquinas is indisputably one of the top 5 moral philosophers of all time (along with Plato, Aristotle, Hume and Kant).

    I don't have a 'worst philosopher', certainly not on that list (I don't count Dawkins as one). Some folks can be hard to read, but that's not really an indictment of their philosophy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    x is indisputably y
    I think any sentence of this form, in philosophy, is indisputably false
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard many a time that Kant's command of language is so obtuse, complicated and overall difficult that many German people don't have a clue what he is really saying, let alone us lot reading translations of his work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethelred the Unready)
    I disagree, tbh. People tend to put Aquinas down just because he was most notably an early theist; but I don't think it's justified from anyone who claims to have read/known anything about him.
    He wasn't an early theist at all, although he was a relatively early theologian.

    What basic logical errors do you refer to?
    Quinquae viae
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Aquinas is indisputably one of the top 5 moral philosophers of all time (along with Plato, Aristotle, Hume and Kant).

    I don't have a 'worst philosopher', certainly not on that list (I don't count Dawkins as one). Some folks can be hard to read, but that's not really an indictment of their philosophy.
    So you agree with everything anyone ever said about anything ever? :rolleyes:

    You may say Dawkins isn't a philosopher, but I say Marx isn't a philosopher.

    'Being a philosopher' is a contentious issue and nobody has definitive rules on what constitutes a philosopher..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t.w.)
    Quinquae viae
    Erm ... I'm not sure if there are logical problems with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th way.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oddjob39A)
    So you agree with everything anyone ever said about anything ever? :rolleyes:
    No, but disagreeing with someone hardly makes them a bad philosopher. Hume disagrees with Kant, but they are both genius'.

    If we're talking about people/positions I vehemently disagree with:

    1. Robert Nozick (political philosophy)
    2. Consequentialism

    But no modern consequentialists (except maybe Peter Singer) is a bad philosopher. Sure, Sam Scheffler doesn't have a non-question-begging argument for consequentialism, but he's still a decent philosopher.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    No, but disagreeing with someone hardly makes them a bad philosopher. Hume disagrees with Kant, but they are both genius'.

    If we're talking about people/positions I vehemently disagree with:

    1. Robert Nozick (political philosophy)
    2. Consequentialism

    But no modern consequentialists (except maybe Peter Singer) is a bad philosopher. Sure, Sam Scheffler doesn't have a non-question-begging argument for consequentialism, but he's still a decent philosopher.
    I simply asked 'who do you not like' as a philosopher, who do you disagree with, who do you think got things wrong.

    I wasn't trying to make a claim for objectivity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t.w.)
    He wasn't an early theist at all, although he was a relatively early theologian.
    He was a theist and within what I would classify as the 'early' period of history. You're saying he's an early theologian but not an early theist. He most certainly was a theist, so why do you feel the need to pick this point out and not call him 'early'. Where this "grand" point of yours?

    Quinquae viae
    There's nothing necessarily "wrong" about what he was consolidating.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Sure, Sam Scheffler doesn't have a non-question-begging argument for consequentialism, but he's still a decent philosopher.
    Having just thought about this, I'm not sure there's a non-question-begging argument for anything. I mean, there's a pretty fine line between being rationally convincing and begging the question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    P2: Things that move were set into motion by something else.

    False premise, with definite hints of a logical fallacy.

    This mover is what we call God

    Again. Non sequitor. This doesn't satisfy his own definition of God.

    From 4:

    These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves
    Complete non sequitor. Just because certain levels of perfection exist, doesn't mean absolute perfection exists (and besides, isn't perfection absolute by definition anyway?). This is the same fallacy employed by the ontological argument.

    From 5:
    All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
    These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
    To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.


    Here we have problems with premises. In this context, I refuse to accept repeated false premises as not constituting some form of logical error, when:
    a) most of these premises are logically deduced
    b) most of his arguments consist mainly of premises

    Added to that is the fact that Aquinas thought the idea of God was provable in the first place.

    In all of his arguments he seems to conclude with, 'this is what we call God', when in fact the entity he has supposedly 'proved' is nowhere near his own complete definition of God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethelred the Unready)
    He was a theist and within what I would classify as the 'early' period of history. You're saying he's an early theologian but not an early theist. He most certainly was a theist, so why do you feel the need to pick this point out and not call him 'early'. Where this "grand" point of yours?
    Actually he probably wasn't even an early theologian. Augustine, perhaps. In using the phrase 'early theist' you seem to misunderstand the history of theism, which has been around long enough to make Aquinas a fairly modern theist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    dawkins!! he has no new ideas! good (biologist) though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I knew this is where all the Dawkins-bashers would come out of the woodwork. I don't think he should be on there.

    Anyway, I voted for L.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t.w.)
    Actually he probably wasn't even an early theologian. Augustine, perhaps. In using the phrase 'early theist' you seem to misunderstand the history of theism, which has been around long enough to make Aquinas a fairly modern theist.
    I don't class Aquinas period (the Medieval age) as Modern (1500 onwards). Sorry about that. As a history student particularly interested in religion, I do, believe it or not, have decent knowledge about the history of theism (in fact, my latest essay being about St. Benedict and how his monastic reforms were a causation factor for the Crusades). I don't class many pre-Luther as being particularly modern, and would class Aquinas as a relatively early theist/theologian and, I guess, an "earlier" philosopher.

    You first admitted that he was probably an early theologian. Now, after realising that would dismantle your point about being a theist, you're saying he wasn't? Why the backtrack?

    He's not as early as St. Benedict or Augustus, granted, but how early is "early". I fail to see any meaningful point in what you've flagged up and would rather you focused on the point of my post and not it's wording - especially when its clearly wrong to assert that he was "modern".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t.w.)
    P2: Things that move were set into motion by something else.

    False premise, with definite hints of a logical fallacy.
    Erm ... that's not a fallacy. False premise perhaps, but false premises are not fallacies.
    This mover is what we call God

    Again. Non sequitor. This doesn't satisfy his own definition of God.
    It isn't meant to follow from anything. Aquinas is taking this as an empirical fact. Aquinas is merely showing, via the argument from motion, that there is a prime mover. Now, maybe he's wrong there, but there's no fallacy.

    From 4:

    These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves
    Complete non sequitor. Just because certain levels of perfection exist, doesn't mean absolute perfection exists (and besides, isn't perfection absolute by definition anyway?). This is the same fallacy employed by the ontological argument.
    I already excluded the 4th way, agreeing that it was problematic.
    From 5:
    All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
    These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
    To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.


    Here we have problems with premises. In this context, I refuse to accept repeated false premises as not constituting some form of logical error, when:
    a) most of these premises are logically deduced
    b) most of his arguments consist mainly of premises
    You're flat out wrong here. A false premise, if deduced validly from another false premise, is not a logical error.
    Added to that is the fact that Aquinas thought the idea of God was provable in the first place.
    Not a logical problem.
    In all of his arguments he seems to conclude with, 'this is what we call God', when in fact the entity he has supposedly 'proved' is nowhere near his own complete definition of God.
    Erm ... a prime mover (1st way), which is intelligent and directs the natural order (5th way). A supremely perfect being (4th way). Sounds like God to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethelred the Unready)
    You first admitted that he was probably an early theologian. Now, after realising that would dismantle your point about being a theist, you're saying he wasn't? Why the backtrack?
    No, not at all. How would the observation that he's an early theologian dismantle my point about theists?! I didn't backtrack, I extended my disagreement. At first I was willing to suspect you meant theologian when you said 'early theist' (because he isn't an early theist at all), but then I realised that there were theologians around 1000 years prior to Aquinas (Augustine), so even if you'd meant that, you'd have been wrong too. Basically I tried to be generous with your error, then realised my generosity was unfounded.

    As for the Aquinas debate, I don't want to get in a long discussion about his arguments. I'll concede that the major weaknesses of his arguments tend to be false premises rather than logical fallacies, as such (which isn't what I originally implied, I know....rusty memory).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    While I don't think there's any reasonable sense in which you can call Aquinas an 'early theist', it's just a linguistic disagreement - hardly worth arguing about in the present context.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.