Greatest Pseudo-philosopher of all time- vote : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Greatest Pseudo-philosopher of all time- vote » Greatest Pseudo-philosopher of all time- vote

Greatest Pseudo-philosopher of all time- vote

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Greatest Pseudo-philosopher of all time- vote

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 06/07/05 - 09:24 AM: Subject: Greatest Pseudo-philosopher of all time- vote	#1
Perhaps we can't agree on who the greatest philosopher is... but is it possible to have a consensus on the greatest Pseudo-philosopher, at least among the wise netizens of this forum? In essence, which figure is responsible for the greatest, or most grievous, 'pseudo-philosophy' or philosophical damage, specifically by means of their teachings (including correct or incorrect interpretations)? This would be my list of candidates for this noteworthy title... in poll form. (additional suggestions for candidates would be welcome) Pick your choice for the greatest Pseudo-philosopher, and explain why.

Ladon
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2004
Location: Urbana, Illinois

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 223

Posted 06/07/05 - 09:35 AM:	#2
What an odd and somewhat bias selection. However, we seem to agree Ayn Rand is quite pseudo.
"The more metaphysical categories we have, the merrier we become." - "Ladon's Rogaine"

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 06/07/05 - 09:45 AM:	#3
Ladon wrote: What an odd and somewhat bias selection. However, we seem to agree Ayn Rand is quite pseudo. Looks like Rand is in the lead. I picked Rand mostly not for the damage that she's done (others have perhaps been more powerful, damaging) but for the nature of this damage, and because she's the quintissential pseudo-philosopher, one who claims to be a philosopher but doesn't truly understand philosophy. How is my list biased? What would you suggest? I tried to balance it out between the 'postmodern' whipping boys (Derrida), and Jesus (with other religious figures accompanying), the ultimate whipping boy. Although perhaps I should have included Nietzsche.

softtarget
banned

Usergroup: Under Review
Joined: Mar 17, 2004
Location: ininity

Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1548

Posted 06/07/05 - 10:35 AM:	#4
Edgar Cayce?
softtarget a journey to nothingness

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 5803

Posted 06/07/05 - 11:08 AM:	#5
Why not include an arch analytic, like Ayer...., or Carnap. It seems that to be a pseudophilosopher you must be a mystic. But is just doing linguistics ıunder the guise of doing philosophy not as much pseudo i.e. not real, philosophy?
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 06/07/05 - 11:18 AM:	#6
Tobias wrote: Why not include an arch analytic, like Ayer...., or Carnap. It seems that to be a pseudophilosopher you must be a mystic. But is just doing linguistics ıunder the guise of doing philosophy not as much pseudo i.e. not real, philosophy? "Pseudo-philosophy" means a bit more than mere falsity for us, doesn't it? I mean couldn't a philosopher turn out to be wrong, but still be a philosopher? It's wishy-washy. But lets add Carnap to the list, by all means.

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 5803

Posted 06/07/05 - 11:34 AM:	#7
Exactly, it is rare if a philosopher doesn't turn out to be wrong on some acounts, goıod question actually, does right or wrong, true opr false, come into question at all when doing philosophy? My question is more are those hardcore analytics doing philosophy, or just pretending to do that, i.e. doing pseudo-philosophy? Kklaatu, you are quite into self-punnishment as a Heideggerian always wanting Heidegger to be pseudo? What is playing here
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 5803

Posted 06/07/05 - 11:36 AM:	#8
Pseudo philosophy pseudos...... seems sensible to me.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 06/07/05 - 11:38 AM:	#9
I voted for Rand. She assumes too much and dismisses too easily. That is to say, she assumes she is right and dismisses everyone who disagrees with her without so much as a couple of sentences explaining why.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 06/07/05 - 12:19 PM:	#10
Tobias wrote: Exactly, it is rare if a philosopher doesn't turn out to be wrong on some acounts, goıod question actually, does right or wrong, true opr false, come into question at all when doing philosophy? My question is more are those hardcore analytics doing philosophy, or just pretending to do that, i.e. doing pseudo-philosophy? I don't know enough about the hardcore analytics to answer the question. But philosophy has many subdisciplines... and those analytics might be performing in a critical fashion, dispatching with metaphysical 'pseudo-questions' (linguistically). Klaatu, you are quite into self-punishment as a Heideggerian always wanting Heidegger to be pseudo? What is playing here A Heideggerian? I'm not sure if I would say that. Although, I will freely admit to reading an excessive amount of Heidegger and even some books about Heidegger. Actually, Heidegger might not even have appreciated being called a "philosopher". Perhaps he would have liked being a pseudo-philosopher better? From Letter on Humanism: "During the time of their greatness the Greeks thought without such headings. They did not even call thinking "philosophy". Thinking comes to an end when it slips out of it's element... "When thinking comes to an end by slipping out of its element it replaces this loss by procuring a validity for itself as techne, as an instrument of education and therefore as a classroom matter and later a cultural concern. By and by philosophy becomes a technique for explaining from highest causes. One no longer thinks; one occupies oneself with "philosophy". In competition with one another, such occupations publicly offer themselves as "-isms" and try to offer more than the others...." Here and elsewhere, Heidegger prefers "thinking" as opposed to "philosophy".

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.