Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Who is your favourite philosopher? Watch

    • Community Assistant
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Me! I just have a way with words that I can understand so well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    John Stuart Mill and great admiration for John Locke
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    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.
    http://fair-use.org/international-jo...-ethics-of-war

    Fantastic Russell essay on war ethics. He lacked the exceptionalism and nationalism that a lot of academics, past and present, unfortunately possess. Coupled with cogent reasoning, this makes for a great read.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wittgenstein or Plato, can't decide which school I sit in, I like Chalmers also


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    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.
    I second this recommendation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    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.
    Kant's categorical imperative is a moral judgement (or at least involves a normative one), but equally to call it an injustice is just as much a moral judgement. Unless you're equating all moral judgements with philosophising as a Christian, I don't understand the structure of your argument here.

    Now Kant was a Christian, but you can use his moral maxim (i.e. that moral orders are those you would wish to universalise - e.g. don't murder) and still be a secularist (and, indeed, profess no faith God; in fact, there are evolutionary explanations to why moral reasoning might operate in the way it does). Indeed, Rawls, famously, no longer believed in God by 1971 when he wrote his Theory of Justice, which involves many Kantian elements in its normative decision-making procedure that motivates and substantiates most of his normative judgements.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Good is good and evil evil. Discussion about the problem of evil takes as a given that there's some correct yardstick (basically assumes realism of some sort about moral values). So it's not a case of the Holocaust (or any other obvious gratuitous evil) being evil just from the human point of view. The claim is that the Holocaust (or the fate or Rowe's fawn, or any other obvious example) is just plain evil (call this the deific point of view if you want). There's just tonnes of evidence for that claim - the magnitude of the suffering, the pointlessness of the suffering (if not pointless, what was the point?), ad infinitum.
    No, it does not. Even a moral nihilist could run the problem of evil against theism.

    If you're a moral realist who employs the problem of evil in a debate against a theist, the theist can easily undercut your argument by employing the moral argument for the existence of God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Plato
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe Schopenhauer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Plato for his ideas, but Sartre for his literature.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    No, it does not. Even a moral nihilist could run the problem of evil against theism.

    If you're a moral realist who employs the problem of evil in a debate against a theist, the theist can easily undercut your argument by employing the moral argument for the existence of God.
    But the moral argument for the existence of God is weaker than a wet paper bag, so not much help there.

    As I said, the Problem of Evil takes as read that there's some correct yardstick. The person pressing the problem need not believe it, but, for the sake of argument it is granted. If realism about moral values is not granted, then the problem does not get off the ground (though neither does theism).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    But the moral argument for the existence of God is weaker than a wet paper bag, so not much help there.

    As I said, the Problem of Evil takes as read that there's some correct yardstick. The person pressing the problem need not believe it, but, for the sake of argument it is granted. If realism about moral values is not granted, then the problem does not get off the ground (though neither does theism).
    The "correct yardstick" is, as the link I provided argues, the loving nature of God. PoE is supposed to reveal an inconsistency in the theistic worldview; as long as we can agree on the fact that one doesn't have to be a moral realist to use the AE, we're fine.

    BTW, are you a moral realist? If yes, are you an ethical naturalist or non-naturalist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hegel.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The "correct yardstick" is, as the link I provided argues, the loving nature of God. PoE is supposed to reveal an inconsistency in the theistic worldview; as long as we can agree on the fact that one doesn't have to be a moral realist to use the AE, we're fine.
    Yes think we're on the same page.

    BTW, are you a moral realist? If yes, are you an ethical naturalist or non-naturalist?
    Bearing in mind it is literally YEARS since I did any meta-ethics, but yes I think I am. If I had to nail my colours to the mast, I guess I'd say I'm a constructivist.

    I find meta-ethical debates pretty dull though. I don't think they really have much bearing on how we do normative ethics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wittgenstein and Godel.

    Nietzsche is laudable as well. In fact, they all have their admirable traits and their ignoble vices.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Has to be Wittgenstein. Kant's probably a close second though..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Graham Priest - a logician and defender of dialetheism, the view that some contradictions are actually true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wittgenstein, Ryle, Hume and Diogenes of Sinope rank as my top philosophers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LadyHaha)
    Swinburne - "Eschatologically verifiable"
    Can you give me a single example of a cogent argument presented by Swinburne?
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
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

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