Who is your favorite philosopher? What was your favorite reading?

[FoxAndChicken]

I just realized that this being a philosophy gathering means I can totally geek out about cool philosophy here. So, my area is logic and I really enjoyed Frege's Sense and Nominatum. However, completely outside of my area of interest but surprisingly my favorite class this semester is Philosophy of Happiness, and I really enjoyed Haybron's work. 

[gughok]

I'm a trainee of analytic philosophy, and within that tradition I'm fond of what little Wittgenstein I've read. I do mind and language, and there I like David Lewis' writing but not necessarily his philosophy. I feel somewhat the same about Searle. Chalmers is obviously cool but also a bit hand-wavy at times. Dennett and Hofstadter seem like well-moderated minds, insofar as I have read them.

But if I'm to be totally honest, as far as my favourite philosopher is concerned, I'm a slave to an insatiable obsession with the continental and their predecessors. Probably my favourite author of all time is Nietzsche - his writing is some of the most invigorating prose I have ever read. Ecce Homo is simply a masterpiece. Sartre is also wonderful. My first experience with the whole theme and style was Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground, and that remains my absolute favourite work of all time. If nothing else, I will carry this around with me the rest of my life:

But yet mathematical certainty is after all, something insufferable. Twice two makes four seems to me simply a piece of insolence. Twice two makes four is a pert coxcomb who stands with arms akimbo barring you path and spitting. I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -IX

[Schwarzwald]

I've a lot in common with you folks. I've Lewis' Counterfactuals sitting infront of me, along with Hofstadter's article "Causality and Necessity," Prior and Kit's Worlds, Times and Selves, Carnap's Meaning and Necessity, Priest's Beyond the Limits of Thought, Prior's Papers in Logic and Ethics, and Hegel's greater logic. (As well as all my Spinoza books, for quick reference.) I'm working on a paper concerning the rigorous definition of nomological possibility if we presuppose MWI, and the identicality of logical and MWI Hilbert Spaces.

However, my technical training is in continental philosophy, specifically Spinoza and Existential Marxism, and those are the programs I applied to. However, I love logic, philosophy of science, and mind.

My favorite philosopher is a dead heat between Spinoza, Plato, and Hegel. I'm most comfortable speaking of Spinoza as I've spent the most time with Spinoza's original texts, as well as a plethora of secondary literature. However, I had a pretty far out Plato teacher, and I loved how far he'd push Plato's interpretive scope, especially concerning socio-political issues and existentialist themes. My love for Hegel is absolute, and cannot be explained (in under 1,000,000 words).

[MVSCZAR]

Plato, for sure. And then Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. Besides these, my favorite text to read has been Buber's I and Thou. My favorite Plato is the seventh letter (if it's taken to be Plato's), and if not the seventh letter, a tie between the Republic and the Phaedrus. 

[metaphysician]

Judith Jarvis Thomson, Susan Wolf, Harry Frankfurt. 

EDIT: And Thomas Nagel. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by metaphysician

[pecado]

Plato, Marx, Russell.

[Siegfried42]

Plato and Kant - particularly, the Republic and the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Though, needless to say, everything each of them wrote is brilliant. In contemporary philosophy, I've particularly enjoyed Thomas Nagel, both his articles and his books. 

 

[Establishment]

I wouldn't say that they're my favorite philosophers. I don't even know who my favorite philosophers are. Gerhard Gentzen maybe, if only because absolutely every single piece of his is brilliant and lucid and original, which I don't think any other philosopher accomplishes for me. Tim Maudlin maybe as well. He's also brilliant but yet has very lucid expository prose despite the technical subjects he deals with.

But in terms of stand out individual pieces, Mark Schroeder's Being For is the absolute best piece of philosophy I've ever read. The structure, insight, and argumentative strength of that book are as perfect as I have ever seen or ever will see. David Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds is a surprisingly persuasive read despite the absolutely false position it adopts, which makes it a pretty grand experience to go through.

[Schwarzwald]

15 minutes ago, Establishment said:

David Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds is a surprisingly persuasive read despite the absolutely false position it adopts, which makes it a pretty grand experience to go through.

...Prove it false.

[Cogitodoncrien]

This is a great thread.

I can't say which philosopher is my favorite, because the degree to which I'm interested in one philosopher or another changes from time to time.  I can say that a few of them will always be at the top of my list for being the most engaging, very readable, lively, and enjoyable.  Those are, in no particular order, Putnam, Quine, Wittgenstein, Gareth Evans, Ned Block, and Nozick (primarily Philosophical Explanations).  I could read the writings of these philosophers over and over and always get something new.  I also think that Sellars (particularly EPM) is fascinating and invigorating, but definitely hard to decipher, which is why he doesn't make the list with the others.

My interests are in mind (especially anti-individualism and concepts), epistemology (especially self-knowledge), and cognitive science.  I'd place Richard Moran and Galen Strawson somewhere else, as I'm very interested in their recent and current research and think that there is a lot of fertile ground in their work.

[MVSCZAR]

To those answering "Plato": 

 

[metaphysician]

My mind was blown by Carolina Sartorio's "A New Asymmetry Between Actions and Omissions"—I want to do philosophy like that. Boo Arizona for not accepting me. 

[502845824]

5 hours ago, gughok said:

I'm a trainee of analytic philosophy, and within that tradition I'm fond of what little Wittgenstein I've read. I do mind and language, and there I like David Lewis' writing but not necessarily his philosophy. I feel somewhat the same about Searle. Chalmers is obviously cool but also a bit hand-wavy at times. Dennett and Hofstadter seem like well-moderated minds, insofar as I have read them.

But if I'm to be totally honest, as far as my favourite philosopher is concerned, I'm a slave to an insatiable obsession with the continental and their predecessors. Probably my favourite author of all time is Nietzsche - his writing is some of the most invigorating prose I have ever read. Ecce Homo is simply a masterpiece. Sartre is also wonderful. My first experience with the whole theme and style was Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground, and that remains my absolute favourite work of all time. If nothing else, I will carry this around with me the rest of my life:

But yet mathematical certainty is after all, something insufferable. Twice two makes four seems to me simply a piece of insolence. Twice two makes four is a pert coxcomb who stands with arms akimbo barring you path and spitting. I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -IX

I'm the same way... I want to work on contemporary metaphysics/mind and ancient Greek philosophy, but my favorite readings ever were Heidegger's Question Concerning Technology and Kierkegaard's Either/Or. And don't get me started on Dostoevsky!

[TheChosenOne]

David Lewis for sure, even though I am diametrically opposed to pretty much every position he adopts, lol.

Alvin Plantinga is also a good philosopher and a great writer...but I find myself at odds with many of his views as well (especially his extravagant Platonism).

Dean Zimmerman is up there. Great metaphysician, reasonable personality. Love his stuff on time.

David Albert is up there, too. Probably my favorite philosopher of science. Makes the issues of QM easy to understand. Engaging writer.

Others: Jaegwon Kim (Mind in a Physical World), Yablo (for everything metaphysics), Azzouni.

But really, apart from David Lewis, I haven't really "given myself" to a particular philosopher. I'm more interested in the debate itself; couldn't care less who the players are.

Edited February 18, 2016 by TheChosenOne

[omfgzell]

I kinda hate Jerry Fodor and disagree with absolutely everything he ever said, but I can't deny that he's a favorite.

[MVSCZAR]

7 minutes ago, oldhatnewtricks said:

I'm the same way... I want to work on contemporary metaphysics/mind and ancient Greek philosophy, but my favorite readings ever were Heidegger's Question Concerning Technology and Kierkegaard's Either/Or. And don't get me started on Dostoevsky!

 

[sidebysondheim]

Favorite philosopher is going to be Hume. But here are some random things I've read recently that I think are super good:

"The Color of Our Shame" - Chris Lebron (book)

"Three Dogmas of Desire" - Talbot Brewer (article)

"Sexism" - Marilyn Frye (article)

"A Woman's Scorn: Toward a Feminist Defense of Contempt" - Macalester Bell (article)

"Blame, Italian Style" - Susan Wolf (article)

 

 

[dgswaim]

Charles Darwin, if I get to count him as a philosopher.

Other than him... big fan of Nancy Cartwright, John Dupre, and David Hull.

For more traditional "LEMM" philosophy, I enjoy EJ Lowe, John Bishop, Hilary Putnam, and Quine.

For logic stuff Gentzen rules.I really like Jan von Plato, too. Proof theory rulz.

Probably the most important philosopher i my intellectual development, though, is Bas van Fraassen. He "awoke me from my dogmatic slumber," so to speak.

[Schwarzwald]

40 minutes ago, dgswaim said:

Charles Darwin, if I get to count him as a philosopher.

Other than him... big fan of Nancy Cartwright, John Dupre, and David Hull.

For more traditional "LEMM" philosophy, I enjoy EJ Lowe, John Bishop, Hilary Putnam, and Quine.

For logic stuff Gentzen rules.I really like Jan von Plato, too. Proof theory rulz.

Probably the most important philosopher i my intellectual development, though, is Bas van Fraassen. He "awoke me from my dogmatic slumber," so to speak.

Good deal, I've been particularly interested in Thomason and Fraassen's collaborations, as well as Fraassen's relation to Everett. I'm starting to warm up to the idea that Thomason's Ockhamist tense logic model, which uses Fraassen's Supervaluations, is the way to go about describing talk about time in a MWI cosmology. 

[thehegeldialectic]

I've spent the most time with Heidegger. In terms of depth of thought, I enjoy reading him the most. "On Time and Being" is right now for me the essay (of his) I've been thinking about lately.

In terms of style, I'd have to say Nietzsche. Nietzsche might be the best writer in the philosophical canon (alongside Plato). In terms of Nietzsche's works, I've been working on a project centered around Birth of Tragedy and Untimely Meditations, although I'm not sure if I'd consider those my "favorite."

Edited February 19, 2016 by iunoionnis

[oldmanPhDStudent]

5 hours ago, TheChosenOne said:

David Lewis for sure, even though I am diametrically opposed to pretty much every position he adopts, lol.

Alvin Plantinga is also a good philosopher and a great writer...but I find myself at odds with many of his views as well (especially his extravagant Platonism).

Dean Zimmerman is up there. Great metaphysician, reasonable personality. Love his stuff on time.

David Albert is up there, too. Probably my favorite philosopher of science. Makes the issues of QM easy to understand. Engaging writer.

Others: Jaegwon Kim (Mind in a Physical World), Yablo (for everything metaphysics), Azzouni.

But really, apart from David Lewis, I haven't really "given myself" to a particular philosopher. I'm more interested in the debate itself; couldn't care less who the players are.

Zimmerman is a creative metaphysician, and he really seems to be a nice guy. I was writing my thesis more or less against one of his particular arguments, and he was very helpful and interactive with me and my silly questions!

[lisamadura]

Kierkegaard's Fear & Trembling has gotten me through some shit.  

[Schwarzwald]

27 minutes ago, lisamadura said:

Kierkegaard's Fear & Trembling has gotten me through some shit.  

I can't believe I forgot Kierkegaard! The Rotation Method opened my eyes to my narcissistic pithy nihilism. 

[psm1580b]

30 minutes ago, lisamadura said:

Kierkegaard's Fear & Trembling has gotten me through some shit.  

It might be a bit passe but both Kierkegaard and Camus for me. As well as, perhaps unsurprisingly, Plato. I find reading the various Socratic dialogues incredibly peaceful and often inspiring by their simplicity. Favorites include Euthyphro, Apology, Meno, and Crito (ok, I have a thing for death. Whatever.)

[MVSCZAR]

8 minutes ago, psm1580b said:

It might be a bit passe but both Kierkegaard and Camus for me. As well as, perhaps unsurprisingly, Plato. I find reading the various Socratic dialogues incredibly peaceful and often inspiring by their simplicity. Favorites include Euthyphro, Apology, Meno, and Crito (ok, I have a thing for death. Whatever.)

I say this as a total Plato devotee, but you might be the only person in the world to list the Euthyphro and the Crito as favorites. I read them in English and in Greek, and will likely read them again and again, but... favorites? Nah. Especially the Euthyphro. The guy's a dweeb.