Favorite philosopher/philosophers?

[idol.chatter]

I'm going to avoid this Hegel debate and remark that I'm surprise by all the mentions of Kierkegaard. I took an independent study on Kierkegaard right after my freshman year, and was basically repulsed by his uber-Christian context. Reading all of these positive responses, though, I wonder if I should give the guy another shot. 

 

(Though, to be fair, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, and still had some serious baggage at the time of the independent study.) 

 

[Edited for the parenthetical remark above.]

Edited January 30, 2014 by idol.chatter

[Monadology]

I actually studied under one of the absolute top Hegel and German Idealism scholars alive. Not even he thinks that Hegel was right about all that much.

In my opinion, the fact that we teach Hegel today is embarrassing. It is very unclear, pretends to be relevant to the real world/open to investigation but is instead viciously arbitrary and based on anecdote and intuition.

Anyone who actually thinks that Hegel's view of the world is correct must have a methodology polar opposite of mine, and because I see no way to reconcile philosophical positions between people who share different methodologies (they will simply question-beg each other) I might as well leave it at that.

 

Which Hegel scholar? Also, what's your methodology and how does it differ from Hegel's?

 

I'm going to avoid this Hegel debate and remark that I'm surprise by all the mentions of Kierkegaard. I took an independent study on Kierkegaard right after my freshman year, and was basically repulsed by his uber-Christian context. Reading all of these positive responses, though, I wonder if I should give the guy another shot. 

 

I suspect that is why, even in light of much recent and active interest in German idealism and proximate philosophers, Nietzsche gets far more attention than Kierkegaard. It's a pretty understandable reaction. But there are, I think, two dimensions with respect to which non-Christian individuals can learn from Kierkegaard (or Christians with theological differences):

 

1) Kierkegaard's not just interested in Christianity and religion, but with what it means to be human. He was obsessed with Socrates almost as much as with Christ. He has things to say about being human that are independent of particular religious dogma. Most of this material comes from Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works and involve concerns about ethics/normativity, agency, and the significance of human finitude. Some of his religious writings are also significant (in particular those that are more Platonic than Christian, such as Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing). For examples of this, one could look toward Anthony Rudd's work (especially Kierkegaard and the Limits of the Ethical), MacIntyre's critique and the responses of Kierkegaard scholars, Patrick Stokes' work etc...

 

2) Kierkegaard's entire attack on Christendom, despite being an essentially religious project, may have some important things to say about how we relate to our culture and what it means to critique it (here, Socrates again bears a lot of significance). For examples of this, one could look at Jonathan Lear's work on irony or Jennifer Lockhart's work on ignorant knowledge.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Monadology

[PRising]

I'd like to say a little more since my original post was just too boring. Historically I'd probably say Wittgenstein. I'm really into analytic philosophy, particularly early analytic philosophy. So, most of my favorite philosophers of all time come out of the 20th century--I'm simply enamored with a lot of work from that time. I also really love Frege and Russell. Another 20th century figure I quite like is Anscombe. Though, in addition to these more modern philosophers I do have a soft spot for Descartes too, especially since he was my first love when I first discovered philosophy! 

 

As for contemporary figures I'd probably say Hilary Putnam, Saul Kripke, or Tyler Burge. 

 

You sound like you went to UCLA, or might like to!

[dgswaim]

I really like Richard Swinburne. Many don't care for arguments from natural theology and the like, but I feel he probably does natural theology and philosophical theology better than anyone living. Also, given that I have certain interests in phil of science, it's nice to know there are theist philosophers out there who take science very seriously.

 

I like William Hasker... though I think he gets it wrong on "emergent dualism"... and I like Jaegwon Kim because his "Causal Exclusion Argument" demonstrates why.

 

Finally, I am deeply indebted to the work of William Alston. His (I would contend) utter destruction of the "internalist/externalist" paradigm in epistemology has shaped a lot of my personal research interests.

[ta_pros_to_telos]

Aristotle or, as Aquinas would have it, "the Philosopher" 

[Billy Goehring]

Aristotle or, as Aquinas would have it, "the Philosopher" 

God I love this about reading Aquinas. The Philosopher, The Commentator, The Master, The Theologian...

 

What happened? Why did we stop writing like this? 

[MattDest]

God I love this about reading Aquinas. The Philosopher, The Commentator, The Master, The Theologian...

 

What happened? Why did we stop writing like this? 

 

Humility?

 

One of the professors at my university told me that Avicenna (at least I think it was Avicenna) said that the existence of Aristotle - a perfect philosopher - was proof enough that there was God. 

[MongooseMayhem]

God I love this about reading Aquinas. The Philosopher, The Commentator, The Master, The Theologian...

 

What happened? Why did we stop writing like this? 

The Billy Goehring is right!

[axiomness]

Humility?

 

One of the professors at my university told me that Avicenna (at least I think it was Avicenna) said that the existence of Aristotle - a perfect philosopher - was proof enough that there was God.

I don't know if Avicenna says this, but Averroes says something like this in his On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy.

 

Avicenna, Averroes, Alfarabi, Al Kindi, Augustine, Aquinas, Abelard... why so many A's? (I know, I know, the "al" is the direct article in Arabic--there are just a lot of medieval A's)

 

I was also told once by Jeff Brower that the greatest proof for the existence of God was the existence of Thomas Aquinas (a joke at the time, but this argument might actually have some merit--the man was amazing. I don't remember the exact numbers, but someone calculated the amount he wrote [i think it was Fred Freddoso] and claimed that if you averaged out his lifespan with the number of words he wrote, it comes out to somewhere near 2,000 words a day.)

 

 

I really like Richard Swinburne. Many don't care for arguments from natural theology and the like, but I feel he probably does natural theology and philosophical theology better than anyone living. Also, given that I have certain interests in phil of science, it's nice to know there are theist philosophers out there who take science very seriously.

 

I like William Hasker... though I think he gets it wrong on "emergent dualism"... and I like Jaegwon Kim because his "Causal Exclusion Argument" demonstrates why.

 

Finally, I am deeply indebted to the work of William Alston. His (I would contend) utter destruction of the "internalist/externalist" paradigm in epistemology has shaped a lot of my personal research interests.

Good call on Swinburne. He is, methodologically, one of my favorite philosophers also. I'm not really fond of a lot of his ideas and reasons for backing them (esp. his work on simplicity & aseity), but the man is a philosophy machine. His the Existence of God is perhaps the best--methodologically--work in philosophy I have read (excepting, maybe, Spinoza's Ethics). If you come to Purdue, we're having the big Swinburne retirement conference there this fall--it's going to be awesome.

Edited February 10, 2014 by axiomness

[dgswaim]

I don't know if Avicenna says this, but Averroes says something like this in his On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy.

 

Avicenna, Averroes, Alfarabi, Al Kindi, Augustine, Aquinas, Abelard... why so many A's? (I know, I know, the "al" is the direct article in Arabic--there are just a lot of medieval A's)

 

I was also told once by Jeff Brower that the greatest proof for the existence of God was the existence of Thomas Aquinas (a joke at the time, but this argument might actually have some merit--the man was amazing. I don't remember the exact numbers, but someone calculated the amount he wrote [i think it was Fred Freddoso] and claimed that if you averaged out his lifespan with the number of words he wrote, it comes out to somewhere near 2,000 words a day.)

 

 

Good call on Swinburne. He is, methodologically, one of my favorite philosophers also. I'm not really fond of a lot of his ideas and reasons for backing them (esp. his work on simplicity & aseity), but the man is a philosophy machine. His the Existence of God is perhaps the best--methodologically--work in philosophy I have read (excepting, maybe, Spinoza's Ethics). If you come to Purdue, we're having the big Swinburne retirement conference there this fall--it's going to be awesome.

Well that sounds like its bound to be A LOT of fun. One of my professors met him just a couple of months ago after he gave the plenary session for the EPS conference. Said he was a very nice, very funny fellow.

 

I'd love to come to Purdue. I'm quite an admirer of Michael Bergmann's work.

Edited February 10, 2014 by dgswaim

[mattyod86]

william lane craig all the way  

[Mavngoose1]

Here's a few of my favorite: Parfit, Williams, Sidgwick, Moore, Ramsey, Williamson, Lewis

[philstudent1991]

I really like Richard Swinburne. Many don't care for arguments from natural theology and the like, but I feel he probably does natural theology and philosophical theology better than anyone living. Also, given that I have certain interests in phil of science, it's nice to know there are theist philosophers out there who take science very seriously.

 

I like William Hasker... though I think he gets it wrong on "emergent dualism"... and I like Jaegwon Kim because his "Causal Exclusion Argument" demonstrates why.

 

Finally, I am deeply indebted to the work of William Alston. His (I would contend) utter destruction of the "internalist/externalist" paradigm in epistemology has shaped a lot of my personal research interests.

I'm not a big Swinburne fan, but his work got me interested in philosophy so for that he will always have a special place in my heart lol.

Edited February 12, 2014 by philstudent1991

[DHumeDominates]

Here's a few of my favorite: Parfit, Williams, Sidgwick, Moore, Ramsey, Williamson, Lewis

 

Ooh, I love Parfit.

[ianfaircloud]

I'm sure most of you already read this, but I think this is interesting: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/so-who-is-the-most-important-philosopher-of-the-past-200-years.html

[bar_scene_gambler]

I'm sure most of you already read this, but I think this is interesting: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/so-who-is-the-most-important-philosopher-of-the-past-200-years.html

Nietzsche got beat out by Frege and Mill??? Mill?! And somehow, G.E. Moore managed to be considered more important than Martin Heidegger. I'm just going to go cry over the fate of philosophy now. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

Nietzsche got beat out by Frege and Mill??? Mill?! And somehow, G.E. Moore managed to be considered more important than Martin Heidegger. I'm just going to go cry over the fate of philosophy now. 

Don't. The readers of Leiter are dominantly analytic. As someone with a largely analytic background, it's commonsense to rate Moore over Heidegger. Moore started a lot of the debates that I talk about, and Heidegger didn't really contribute to any of the areas I talk about. Same goes for Mill and Frege over Nietzsche. Frege pretty much started formal logic, phil of language, and debates about meaning and influenced Wittgenstein and Russell and others to work on those problems which lead to much of the philosophy done in the english speaking world today. Nietzsche, while interesting, didn't do that. In fact in my entire undergraduate career I read Frege, Moore and Mill, but never Nietzsche or Heidegger. I only know about those figures because of the internet. 

So don't despair, just realize that most of the people who voted do philosophy differently than you do, and so their figures are different.  

[bar_scene_gambler]

Don't. The readers of Leiter are dominantly analytic. As someone with a largely analytic background, it's commonsense to rate Moore over Heidegger. Moore started a lot of the debates that I talk about, and Heidegger didn't really contribute to any of the areas I talk about. Same goes for Mill and Frege over Nietzsche. Frege pretty much started formal logic, phil of language, and debates about meaning and influenced Wittgenstein and Russell and others to work on those problems which lead to much of the philosophy done in the english speaking world today. Nietzsche, while interesting, didn't do that. In fact in my entire undergraduate career I read Frege, Moore and Mill, but never Nietzsche or Heidegger. I only know about those figures because of the internet. 

So don't despair, just realize that most of the people who voted do philosophy differently than you do, and so their figures are different.  

FUCK YOU AND YOUR REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUNDS!!! I'M GOING TO GO BECOME AN UBERMENSCH SO I CAN RAPE AND PILLAGE! HAVE FUN WITH YOUR LOGIC

EDIT: In all seriousness though, the fact that you didn't even read Nietzsche or Heidegger (and I assume others from the list) during your undergraduate career is a crying shame. I read Wittgenstein and Mill and Moore and others from that list, and I'm glad I did, even though I don't particularly like Moore. It does bother me a bit that there are places where a broad education at the undergraduate level isn't emphasized. 

Edited February 12, 2014 by bar_scene_gambler

[Cottagecheeseman]

FUCK YOU AND YOUR REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUNDS!!! I'M GOING TO GO BECOME AN UBERMENSCH SO I CAN RAPE AND PILLAGE! HAVE FUN WITH YOUR LOGIC

EDIT: In all seriousness though, the fact that you didn't even read Nietzsche or Heidegger (and I assume others from the list) during your undergraduate career is a crying shame. I read Wittgenstein and Mill and Moore and others from that list, and I'm glad I did, even though I don't particularly like Moore. It does bother me a bit that there are places where a broad education at the undergraduate level isn't emphasized. 

Haha. My program was very much contemporary based. Except for two low-level courses in history there were no further historical classes offered, and everything was 'issue based' and we read recent work on those issues, only sometimes reading older works related to them. So there wasn't really any place for Nietzsche or Heideggar. In terms of preparing students for graduate study at most grad schools, this is the way to do it, so I see why. Personally I wish there was more history there, but more Hume and Aristotle. 

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

FUCK YOU AND YOUR REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUNDS!!! I'M GOING TO GO BECOME AN UBERMENSCH SO I CAN RAPE AND PILLAGE! HAVE FUN WITH YOUR LOGIC

EDIT: In all seriousness though, the fact that you didn't even read Nietzsche or Heidegger (and I assume others from the list) during your undergraduate career is a crying shame. I read Wittgenstein and Mill and Moore and others from that list, and I'm glad I did, even though I don't particularly like Moore. It does bother me a bit that there are places where a broad education at the undergraduate level isn't emphasized. 

 

I took a 19th century course and a continental course. Read Nietzsche, Fichte, Heidegger, and others... waste of my time.

[ianfaircloud]

EDIT: In all seriousness though, the fact that you didn't even read Nietzsche or Heidegger (and I assume others from the list) during your undergraduate career is a crying shame. I read Wittgenstein and Mill and Moore and others from that list, and I'm glad I did, even though I don't particularly like Moore. It does bother me a bit that there are places where a broad education at the undergraduate level isn't emphasized. 

 

I gotta say, my undergraduate education was incredibly deprived in this regard.  It is a shame.  I think people underestimate the importance of the undergraduate experience.  Even after the MA at a top-six, I feel a bit behind those who had the quality undergraduate experience.  Those are formative years.  I hope to have children, and when I do, I'll encourage them to attend schools where I know they'll have access to this kind of education.

[ianfaircloud]

I took a 19th century course and a continental course. Read Nietzsche, Fichte, Heidegger, and others... waste of my time.

 

You're trolling, right?  I can't always detect sarcasm...

[Weltgeist]

I took a 19th century course and a continental course. Read Nietzsche, Fichte, Heidegger, and others... waste of my time.

You read Fichte in an undergrad course? That's fantastic, I'm incredibly jealous.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

You're trolling, right?  I can't always detect sarcasm...

 

Completly serious. There's many more persons I could include too, to be even more controversial.

[Mavngoose1]

Nietzsche got beat out by Frege and Mill??? Mill?! And somehow, G.E. Moore managed to be considered more important than Martin Heidegger. I'm just going to go cry over the fate of philosophy now.

To be fair to Mill he made a wide set of contributions to political philosophy and ethics outside of his work on utilitarianism as well as some influential work on the philosophy of science and logic. Not to mention he made several contributions to economics and was, to his credit, also a proto-feminist.

So, I hope this might explain why those who work on inductive logic, philosophy of science, and perhaps even a feminist or two would vote for him over Nietzsche. So it's not just a bunch of smelly utilitarians. Although I am a bit surprised Nietzsche lost as well and am not sure who I would vote for.