Turn on thread page Beta

Which philosopher do you find the most interesting? watch

  • View Poll Results: Which philosopher do you find the most interesting?
    Socrates
    6
    7.14%
    Plato
    4
    4.76%
    Aristotle
    3
    3.57%
    Immanuel Kant
    7
    8.33%
    Confucius
    2
    2.38%
    Karl Marx
    12
    14.29%
    Soren Kierkegaard
    4
    4.76%
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    16
    19.05%
    John Locke
    0
    0%
    David Hume
    5
    5.95%
    Rene Descartes
    7
    8.33%
    Ludwig Wittgenstein
    5
    5.95%
    Jean-Paul Sartre
    3
    3.57%
    John Stuart Mill
    6
    7.14%
    Bertrand Russell
    4
    4.76%
    Gottfried Leibniz
    0
    0%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mashw)
    I've gone for Nietzsche partly because of perspectivalism and partly for his transvaluation of all values, which are present throughout most of his works. That is, his ability to stare directly in the face of morality and see it for what it really is without being entrenched in the prejudices of his own day is something we still don't really do in philosophy.

    Also, despite it usually being interpreted differently than Nietzsche meant it, his "god is dead" exclamation, and more importantly, the madman coming too early for people to heed his words are descriptions of things we've witnessed, and still are witnessing, since his death.

    Being a philosophy student in the analytic tradition I find Nietzsche acts as a great bridge between analytic and some continental philosopher's work. He also acts as a great mirror to philosophy making it look at itself and try not to repeat its mistakes.

    Disappointed Schopenhauer's not on the list, I may have chosen him as my number 1 for his influence over Nietzsche's own ideas.
    Oh thank God, someone who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Nietzsche! :eek:

    I love you :love: You even mentioned Schopenhauer, and didn't say that Nietzsche liked him but rather that he influenced him - which sooooo many people get wrong because they read BofT, his Wikipedia page, and nothing else!

    So very tired of people saying 'Nietzsche iz well wierd and awesome innit'! And saying that they like him even though they've only read Zarathustra and don't know that he was at his best when he wrote aphoristically.

    Best post I've ever read in my entire life, EVER. I wish I had more rep to give :sadnod:


    Oh, and OP I went for Plato cos I like that I can understand him, and can see when he's being a bit crap. It's always nice to feel clever :puppyeyes:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    Plato his theory of the forms and allegory of the cave really give you something to think about.
    Well yeah .. but it's all such tosh. Plato is only good for laughing at.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm by no means an expert here but I always found Nietzsche interesting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wittgenstein
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    [email protected] He's so overrated. Russell is da man.
    According to you, but not according to Russell;

    Spoiler:
    Show
    ... I wrote a lot of stuff about the theory of knowledge which Wittgenstein criticised with the greatest severity? His criticism, tho' I don't think you realised it at the time, was an event of first rate importance in my life, and affected everything I have done since. I saw that he was right, and I saw that I could not hope ever again to do fundamental work in philosophy. My impulse was shattered, like a wave dashed to pieces against a breakwater. I became filled with utter despair, and tried to turn to you for consolation.
    Letter to Ottoline Morel, 1916

    He was perhaps the most perfect example I known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating. He had a kind of purity which I have never known equalled except by G.E.Moore.

    He used to come to see me every evening at midnight, and pace up and down the room like a wild beast for three hours in agitated silence. Once I said to him: 'Are you thinking about logic, or about your sins?' 'Both', he replied, and continued his pacing.
    Autobiography, 1959

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Where is the Swinburne?

    He's not particularly interesting. He came up with an argument of probability and aplied to as many theories as he could...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I would say Dante Alleghieri
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Nietzsche, but Russell & Sartre are very close seconds .

    No Machiavelli, Hobbes or Hegel?
    Offline

    15
    There is truly only one way to end this argument anyway. It's by Philosopher Top Trumps which my philosophy class made at the end of term. It was officially decided that Nietzsche was the winner. The categories were Validity, Quantity of Work, Eccentricity, Comprehension and Treatment of Women.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I did vote Kierkegaard (who I probably find all the more interesting since I'm an atheist) but part of me did want to say Derrida. I know it's intellectual masochism and all but I've read Zarathustra, the Antichrist, Beyond Good and Evil, The Will to Power (compiled by Kauffman), The Gay Science, the Genealogy of Morals and not once is his writing, haphazard as it is, anywhere near the level of Derridan absurdity.

    It's as if Derrida's work is the continuation of Kant's esoteric quasi-code-prose exemplified by the most sterile grammar and arsenal of terminology and jargon that made reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason the philosophical equivalent of War and Peace.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    As the title says; not necessarily who you agree with the most or admire but who do you find the most intriguing out of the following? Feel free to post an alternative which is not included in the list.


    For me it has to be Nietzsche; his view of the world must have been so surreal.

    they were talking about him in that film The History Boys I think
    sorry I've just done my GCSE's and i had more things to worry about
    Offline

    13
    Schopenhauer.

    But I respect Russell more; a la my avatar.

    Edit: Or Gödel; a la my sig.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thomas Hobbes!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I put Kant, but really its Hegel. Although they're not my favourite philosophers, the fact that there work is to terse, technical and open to interpretation makes them really interesting figures for me. I find philosophers who build huge systems of thought fascinating.

    I'm surprised by how many people have said Nietzsche. He's just managed to pick up a reputation in my eyes as some kind of cool, alternative and edgy philosopher when in fact there isn't as much to him as some would like to have you believe. Dare I say that there is a lot of style over substance, because I think that covers a lot of his "radical" ideas.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nietzsche, but Locke and Hume are a close joint-second.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by urbandervish)
    According to you, but not according to Russell;

    Spoiler:
    Show
    [I]Letter to Ottoline Morel, 1916

    Autobiography, 1959

    Erm ... in both those sources he's talking about Wittgenstein, not Nietzsche. Quite how Russell's thinking Witters was brilliant is meant to counter the view that Nietzsche is overrated is anyone's guess. :confused:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Erm ... in both those sources he's talking about Wittgenstein, not Nietzsche. Quite how Russell's thinking Witters was brilliant is meant to counter the view that Nietzsche is overrated is anyone's guess. :confused:
    A botched Google search and transient illiteracy would be my guess.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rigg_Morm)
    I put Kant, but really its Hegel. Although they're not my favourite philosophers, the fact that there work is to terse, technical and open to interpretation makes them really interesting figures for me. I find philosophers who build huge systems of thought fascinating.

    I'm surprised by how many people have said Nietzsche. He's just managed to pick up a reputation in my eyes as some kind of cool, alternative and edgy philosopher when in fact there isn't as much to him as some would like to have you believe. Dare I say that there is a lot of style over substance, because I think that covers a lot of his "radical" ideas.

    Superficially yes and I ignored the man's work for years because I was under that impression. I won't try to convince you you're wrong, I just hope you try to ignore the adolescent romanticism surrounding him and really look at his ideas closely, not getting too mired in his idiosyncrasies, unless you begin to enjoy them that is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Erm ... in both those sources he's talking about Wittgenstein, not Nietzsche. Quite how Russell's thinking Witters was brilliant is meant to counter the view that Nietzsche is overrated is anyone's guess. :confused:
    :o: The writing was (clearly) on the wall; I just don't know what happend. I obviously cross wired :confused:

    Anyways, I voted for Ludder's... isn't this an interesting pic though?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mashw)
    Superficially yes and I ignored the man's work for years because I was under that impression. I won't try to convince you you're wrong, I just hope you try to ignore the adolescent romanticism surrounding him and really look at his ideas closely, not getting too mired in his idiosyncrasies, unless you begin to enjoy them that is.
    I think I was a little harsh on him to be honest in my first post, and I regretted how I phrased it.
    Its not that I particularly dislike his ideas, and I like what you said about him being "a great mirror to philosophy making it look at itself and try not to repeat its mistakes". Its just that with Nietzsche I think the ideas he proposes aren't in fact as radical as they appear at first glance. They just come at you that way because of how Nietzsche portrays them (his idiosyncrasies if you will), and that is a talent in itself. I disagree with Nietzsche on a few of his more fanciful ideas (Overman etc.) but I admire his perspectivism - that is undoubtedly important.

    Then again, I am by no means an expert on Nietzsche so you probably have a better understanding of him than I do. All I'm really rebelling against is his reputation, because I think he is unfairly portrayed as more interesting and important than a lot of other great philosophers (not in academic circles of course, but informally).
 
 
 
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.