Least favorite philosopher?

[Mavngoose1]

Yikes, I rather like a number of those receiving hate including Hume and Austin. I can take or leave Plantiga... And I don't know enough Kierkegaard to comment. My own pick  would be David Benatar.

[RookIV]

Ok, I really hate people that come into philosophy with preconceived beliefs and then use philosophy to try to justify those beliefs, I think philosophy should be done in a more 'what do the arguments/evidence actually show'. 

 

Russell makes this same point in his History of Western Philosophy. Anthony Kenny responded by saying "Russell spent several hundred pages trying to prove that 2+2=4, a fact he has believed his whole life." 

 

I can understand why people find modern or contemporary philosophers overrated, But I find it troubling how many important philosophers have been mentioned. The idea that Plato or Aristotle are overrated is, frankly, a little preposterous. These guys are responsible for the entire structure of Western history until fairly recently. Any person who can alter the course of history merely with a pen and paper deserves to be read with the utmost care and precision. We forget easily that  at the time of Aquinas, Descartes, Newton, Kant, Hegel, etc. there were plenty of other forgotten philosophers, probably more than there are now, but we remember these names because they saw something that made a profound impact on human history. 

 

"I disagree with so and so" should not translate into "So and So is overrated" or "I hate so and so." Aristotle is a fantastic example. Here is a guy who would devote chapters and chapters at the beginning of his most important works to surveying the great minds before him. He did this so that he might extract the grains of truth that lay hidden in their cryptic statements. The intellect works as if governed by the truth, Aristotle thought. If someone lays out a strong argument and firmly believes it, there is likely something true contained there, and it can educate us. Consider Parmenides. Parmenides thought he disproved the existence of motion. Obviously, he did not, but his argument could not be refuted for a couple hundred years precisely because it pointed out so many true things. Most of the views of the eminent philosophers are like Parmenides. The conclusions you may disagree with, or may be manifestly false, but to carry that over into the statement that the philosopher is "overrated?"

 

To the poster who said Thales, Thales apparently invented geometry and was considered by the Greeks to be the first philosopher. In other words, we owe the very existence of our discipline and perhaps the whole existence of Western science to Thales! Have you ever thought to wonder why he said that all things are water? Or why he would express his opinions in this way?

[idol.chatter]

Tell me what crowd you're hanging out with. I'll gladly swap places. In my 4 years at undergrad and 2 years at an MA, I've met only two people with any familiarity with Kierkegaard, much less esteem. 

 

I'm from a really small program, and my advisor is fluent in, and a major advocate of, Kierkegaard, and most of the other faculty in the department have a decent knowledge of him. A good friend of mine, though, is pretty much obsessed with the guy, so with every conversation comes something about him. So it's not that I have a major problem with the guy - I actually really love some of this ideas (the religious sphere concept is the bomb) - it's just that I hear about him a lot where I am. 

[idol.chatter]

To the poster who said Thales, Thales apparently invented geometry and was considered by the Greeks to be the first philosopher. In other words, we owe the very existence of our discipline and perhaps the whole existence of Western science to Thales! Have you ever thought to wonder why he said that all things are water? Or why he would express his opinions in this way?

 

I hear you, respect your post, and basically agree with all of it. But I wanted to say that I personally found this whole thread to be very lighthearted and even a little sarcastic. I thought the guy who mentioned Thales was hilarious, because it's comical now to think about everything being water, but I know, in my philosophy heart of hearts, that Thales is the man. 

I think we could probably all agree that none of those mentioned are sincerely overrated, if for no other reason than that only 2-3 of them would even register in the consciousness of the general public, and philosophy as a discipline is losing respect because of things like that. But, when one is in the company of lots of other philosophers, most of them students immersed in the study, I don't think it's inappropriate to have a lighthearted post about who we might be up for teasing a bit. 

 

Edit: I also want to say that, as a whole, I often find it hard to figure out what tone to take in these forums. Are we all joking? Are some of us very serious? Who among us is truly an expert in graduate admissions, and has the right to take the authoritative tone many of us do? A lot of us are in pretty (dare I say) sensitive places, considering the major anxiety involved in the application process, and we might do well to read everything as charitably as possible. 

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by idol.chatter

[ianfaircloud]

Edit: I also want to say that, as a whole, I often find it hard to figure out what tone to take in these forums. Are we all joking?

 

I think this particular thread is lighthearted.  I don't feel too passionately about my post regarding Kierkegaard.  I evaluate a philosopher in terms of content and form.  On these metrics, Kierkegaard is one of my least favorites.  But I don't deny his contribution.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

I think this particular thread is lighthearted.  I don't feel too passionately about my post regarding Kierkegaard.  I evaluate a philosopher in terms of content and form.  On these metrics, Kierkegaard is one of my least favorites.  But I don't deny his contribution.

 

I think we need to engage in fistycuffs, because I think Kierkegaard's contribution and importance is nonexistent, but I think his content, and particularly his form weepingly beautiful.

[bar_scene_gambler]

I think we need to engage in fistycuffs, because I think Kierkegaard's contribution and importance is nonexistent, but I think his content, and particularly his form weepingly beautiful.

Oh, so Kierkegaard gets a vote for beauty but Nietzsche was an absolute waste of time? I see how it is. 

[maxhgns]

Hegel.

 

Me too. I've taken an inexplicable (given my distaste for his work) number of graduate courses on Hegel at this point, and I have to confess that I still don't really understand what's going on. At least, I don't feel like I do, for the most part. I think I understand the lectures on fine art well enough, but they're total bunk (except for chapter 3).

 

I should confess that much of my reception of Hegel was influenced, early on, by my love of Schopenhauer. Years later, however, I still can't shake the intuition that Hegel just pretended to make sense, and the real importance of his work is to be found in the work (/interpretations) of those who came after him instead.

[Monadology]

I'm from a really small program, and my advisor is fluent in, and a major advocate of, Kierkegaard, and most of the other faculty in the department have a decent knowledge of him. A good friend of mine, though, is pretty much obsessed with the guy, so with every conversation comes something about him. So it's not that I have a major problem with the guy - I actually really love some of this ideas (the religious sphere concept is the bomb) - it's just that I hear about him a lot where I am. 

 

I bet that can be tiring!

 

FWIW, my tone in this thread is definitely tongue-in-cheek. Really, the only philosopher I could think of that I genuinely feel negatively about is still alive and very much active, so I didn't feel like it was appropriate to mention him. Instead I just picked a historical philosopher that is bottom of the list in terms of appeal. I have mad respect for Hume. 

 

 

 I evaluate a philosopher in terms of content and form. On these metrics, Kierkegaard is one of my least favorites. 

 

Are you using philosophical standards for form/content? If so, I can see where you're coming from. If you're speaking more generally, I'm pretty baffled. Kierkegaard was a literary genius. Though I guess taste can vary quite a bit!

Edited February 12, 2014 by Monadology

[gingin6789]

I don't care much for Descartes, but I have a feeling that I might have been channeling my frustrations with my thesis onto him.  I was just beginning to solidify my topic and read through all of the literature for my literature review, and having to sit and try to digest the Meditations made me want to throw the book at the wall. It was probably the content of his work that drove me crazy, but just getting started on my thesis wasn't helping Carty's case either ... 

Edited February 12, 2014 by gingin6789

[MattDest]

I don't care much for Descartes, but I have a feeling that I might have been channeling my frustrations with my thesis onto him.  I was just beginning to solidify my topic and read through all of the literature for my literature review, and having to sit and try to digest the Meditations made me want to throw the book at the wall. It was probably the content of his work that drove me crazy, but just getting started on my thesis wasn't helping Carty's case either ... 

 

 

Is this ""Religious Frames and the Contraceptive Clause of the Affordable Care Act"" your thesis? I'd be interested to hear how Descartes would help you there. 

[Monadology]

Is this ""Religious Frames and the Contraceptive Clause of the Affordable Care Act"" your thesis? I'd be interested to hear how Descartes would help you there. 

 

I think the idea was that they were reading Descartes for some other reasons while they were becoming frustrated with their thesis, and the frustration bled over into their experience of reading Descartes.

[gingin6789]

I think the idea was that they were reading Descartes for some other reasons while they were becoming frustrated with their thesis, and the frustration bled over into their experience of reading Descartes.

This is what I meant!! Sorry if my post implied otherwise!!  I was reading Descartes in my Modern Philosophy class.

Edited February 12, 2014 by gingin6789

[MattDest]

This is what I meant!! Sorry if my post implied otherwise!!  I was reading Descartes in my Modern Philosophy class.

 

Ah, OK! You were clear, I was reading too much into what you wrote. I would have been very interested to hear how Descartes had impacted your understanding of the ACA. 

[gingin6789]

Ah, OK! You were clear, I was reading too much into what you wrote. I would have been very interested to hear how Descartes had impacted your understanding of the ACA. 

OH, I see!! That is a very good question!  It was a thesis for sociology, so I didn't delve into the intersection of Descartes into my topic, but I'm sure that would be a really interesting way of looking at it!  I'll have to look into that Cartesian intersection =)  Thanks for the input!!

[greencoloredpencil]

Yeah let's downvote someone for expressing their opinion exactly in the way the topic called for. The topic asked me for my least favorite philosopher and I honestly answered with Plato. Thanks guys. 

[dgswaim]

Yeah let's downvote someone for expressing their opinion exactly in the way the topic called for. The topic asked me for my least favorite philosopher and I honestly answered with Plato. Thanks guys. 

I guess that's what one gets for having opinions on stuff.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

I guess that's what one gets for having opinions on stuff.

 

That's what one gets for having WRONG opinions on stuff. </s>

[dgswaim]

That's what one gets for having WRONG opinions on stuff. </s>

I think you have the wrong opinion of opinions. 

[DHumeDominates]

In the words of Edmund Husserl, Hume genius was astounding, but it was not accompanied by an equally astounding philosophy. I just don't think of skeptical philosophy as very interesting. That, ultimately, is just a report of preference, though.

 

Some commentators don't regard Hume as much of a skeptic about anything. I think he's a realist with respect to causation, the external world, and personal identity. Also, it's been established conclusively that he's not an inductive skeptic. He's certainly a skeptic in some sense, but it's not at all obvious in what sense that is.

 

Also, how does Husserl pretend to distinguish Hume's genuis from his philosophy? What was Husserl reading that gave him such a high opinion of Hume's intellect? His history, his essays on chastity?

Edited February 13, 2014 by DHumeDominates

[humean_skeptic]

I think you have the wrong opinion of opinions. 

 

I disagree.

[dgswaim]

I disagree.

I think you have the wrong opinion of the idea of agreement.

[humean_skeptic]

I think you have the wrong opinion of the idea of agreement.

 

I agree. 

[dgswaim]

Touche...

[ianfaircloud]

Yeah let's downvote someone for expressing their opinion exactly in the way the topic called for. The topic asked me for my least favorite philosopher and I honestly answered with Plato. Thanks guys. 

 

Now, here's my reason for disliking Plato:  "He's continental."