Who is the best philosopher and why?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Who is the best philosopher and why? » Who is the best philosopher and why?

Who is the best philosopher and why?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Who is the best philosopher and why?

Epilogas
Floating Dust

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Location: Lithuania

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 257

Posted 01/07/05 - 06:38 AM:	#81
Schopenhauer did see all these things as means to a more peaceful and enlightened way of life, but none of them were "denial of the will-to-live". Only asceticism is referred to in that way. Nietzsche also claimed that Schopenhauer did not recognise that suffering had a redemptive quality, yet his recognition of this seems blatantly clear in part 4 of The World as Will and Representation.

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

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

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 01/07/05 - 06:41 AM:	#82
Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel is directed at his perception that Hegel's works use deliberately impressive but ultimately vacuous jargon and neologisms, and that they contained castles of abstraction that sounded impressive but ultimately contained no verifiable content Yes, Schopenhauer, incredible gifted writer with a nice vitriolic pen and an important metaphysician too. Yet, if the above counts as 'critique' than his argumentation is itself rather vacuous or better, non existent. The quote you gave is a hillariously funny very witty, well written, corker of an ad hominem Did you know that as a beginning lecturer he paired his lectures opposite to Hegel? He was very sorry when no-one showed up. No seriously. Ilike schopenhauer a lot, but to say that I hold him as an authority regarding the works of his contemporaries (escept for Kant),....well no. they were not devoid of merit when targeted at someone who may have seen the Prussian state of his day as perfect and the goal of all history till then, depending on how you interpret him. Even if true, what that has to do with his incredible verbiose writing style I don't know, but it is in any case a very uncharitable interpretation and why would we do that? And even if true, if that wuld be a reason for tossing hisphilosophy out of the window, what do we do with Schopenhauer himself and his rather quaint views regarding women? regards Tobi
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5129

Posted 01/07/05 - 09:36 AM:	#83
Tobias wrote: Ilike schopenhauer a lot, but to say that I hold him as an authority regarding the works of his contemporaries (escept for Kant),....well no. have you read schopenhauer's "on the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason"? or "criticism of the kantian philosophy" (which is the appendix to world as will and representation, vol. one)? i find that together they comprise a far more profound critique and surpassing of kant's critical philosophy than hegel's speculative paean to 'pure reason'. can you think of a significant neo-kantian of the mid-19th to early 20th centuries (including wittgenstein!) who doesn't start with kant where schopenhauer left off?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

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

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 01/07/05 - 01:08 PM:	#84
No, I didn't read either of them, I only read World as Will..... But I agree with you and I also said as much. "I don't hold Schopenhauer as an authority regarding the works of his contemporaries except for Kant" (Though I spelled it rotten )I think Schopenhauer is a very fine illuminator of Kant, even without aquainting myself with the fourfold Root (that doesn't mean I do not think I have to read the Fourfold Root, but alas there is so much...). Hegel differs strongly from Kant, though he owes very much to him (as well as to Spinoza). He also recognises this, despite his criticisms of the categories, or of the dualism in Kant. Take for instance his declaration of love for the synthetic apperception, which he calls the greatest achievement and summit of speculative philosophy achieved. No qualms with you there. regards, Tobi
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Sir DarryL1uS Dav3np0rT
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 01/07/05 - 02:21 PM:	#85
Nietzche

Sycron
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 01/11/05 - 04:25 PM:	#86
Like most people in this thread, I think that the list is slightly ineffective, and most certainly incomplete, but nonetheless I voted for Nietzsche.

mercmisfire
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2004

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 9

Posted 01/15/05 - 11:54 AM:	#87
-Nagarjuna [1) my favorite (read "fundamental wisdom of the middle way" and "master of wisdom", 2) brilliant (even if some think he was just splitting hairs), 3) his influence has been immense, even immeasurable (he basically gave solid foundation to all of Mahayana buddhism, and, consequently, flavored almost all of Eastern culture; often called the second buddha)] -Nishitani (read "religion and nothingness" -- tell me I'm wrong; good answer to all the nihilists out there) -Nishida (I am not a partiular fan of his work itself -- I find it overwritten and confusing. BUT, he single handedly modernized Eastern philosophy; he CREATED modern Japanese philosophy (which is often referred to as "Nishida philosophy"), and his ideas are certainly not weak or bad) -I have put a bunch of important Eastern philosophers on here, but not mentioned important Westerners, particularly Aristotle; I know he's important, but I also just think he's wrong. Nothingness, as opposed to being, is the foundation and field of philosophy. -Epictetus and Zeno (for ethics and life; not necessarily correct, but inspirational and, to some degree, practical) -Frege (I don't like him, but he is damn important) -->merc

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

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

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 01/15/05 - 01:23 PM:	#88
I know he's important, but I also just think he's wrong. Nothingness, as opposed to being, is the foundation and field of philosophy. o, why? Would you like to expand on that view in our great 'all or nothing' thread, here? http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/9794
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Tshirts
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2003

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 62

Posted 01/15/05 - 02:12 PM:	#89
Not having Schopenhauer on the list is a crime. He is one step ahead of Kant; and his theories pave the way to Nietzche (the greatest philosopher in my opinion), modern psychology, and Carl Jung. I pick Nietzche as the greatest philosopher because he is ushering us into a new era of thinking: individual positive self-reliance. Before Nietzche, all philosophies are cynical, after he proclaims god is dead, he asks us to lose our childlike dependency on god to become supermen: to be fully responsible for our well-being, and become gods ourselves by finding the courage to be strong, hard, and intellectually and morally independent. This, along with Jung's collective unconscious, is giving new hope to mankind; that nothing in this world is by accident; that anyone can alter and control their life if they work hard enough. Nietzche gives birth to an optimistic future. Reading him is a breath of fresh air. Spinoza and Plato should be commended also: spinoza for his sheer genius (probably the most intellectual philosopher), and plato for his aesthetics contributions. Edited by Tshirts on 01/15/05 - 02:21 PM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions." - Plato

Epilogas
Floating Dust

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Location: Lithuania

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 257

Posted 01/15/05 - 05:23 PM:	#90
Tshirts wrote: Not having Schopenhauer on the list is a crime. He is one step ahead of Kant; and his theories pave the way to Nietzche (the greatest philosopher in my opinion), modern psychology, and Carl Jung. Schopenhauer pave the way to Nietzche. But I wouldn't say Nietzche is ahead of Schopenhauer as Schopenhauer is ahead of Kant. Nietzche is nice variation of Schopenhauer and N is no way opposite to S. S books are rather pessimistic, N books are rather optimistic, but I bet they both had good and bad times. The main concept of will as essence of the world was expressed stronger in Nietzche's philosophy, but it wasn't something new. Ubermench- I don't think so. Will to power is part of will to live. The same as sex sence is only part of will to live. Shorter- will to live is much wider conception. Schopenhauer's philosophy is systemic, Nietzche's philosophy is chaotic and contravercial. That's why it is possible to interpret his words so differently. Many people likes him not becouse he is the best, but becouse he is inspiring. Maby I'm wrong, but it seems to me, that idea of will to power wakes up wish to be higher than other people, no matter who the reader is. Just a thoght- is it possible to become better, if there is no other to compear. If I'd say happines is final satisfaction and joy is satisfaction at the moment. Than happines is impossible and it is Schopenhauer who gives me more joy, than this crazy will to power(on others?). Becoming better than oneself? If person is will, if will is thing itself. Is it better to act according to will or try to be what one is not? Psichology is taking ground in pop culture. If we agree Schopenhauer pave the way to modern psichology, than he is at least one of few most influencial philosophers.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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