-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you could met any three philosophers who would they be?
- Thread starter SaintAugustine
- Start date
Top three:
Marcus Aurelius (the guy wrote thoughtful philosophy while at war)
Aristotle (founded formal logic, Nichomachian Ethics, cooler than Plato, master biologist)
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)
Runners up:
Laozi
Socrates
Zeno of Citium
Epircurus
Sam Harris
Miyamoto Musashi
Eckharte Tolle
Albert Camus
Alasdair MacIntyre
Vyasa
Philippa Foot
Seneca the Younger
Neal Donald Walsch
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Gertrude Anscombe
Einstein
Spinoza
Bertrand Russell
I'm almost certainly forgetting people. These are off the top of my head.
I saw someone mention Pascal. He's a total boss in science, math and writing, though I find his philosophy lacking. I'd totally give the guy a hug, though.
Marcus Aurelius (the guy wrote thoughtful philosophy while at war)
Aristotle (founded formal logic, Nichomachian Ethics, cooler than Plato, master biologist)
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)
Runners up:
Laozi
Socrates
Zeno of Citium
Epircurus
Sam Harris
Miyamoto Musashi
Eckharte Tolle
Albert Camus
Alasdair MacIntyre
Vyasa
Philippa Foot
Seneca the Younger
Neal Donald Walsch
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Gertrude Anscombe
Einstein
Spinoza
Bertrand Russell
I'm almost certainly forgetting people. These are off the top of my head.
I saw someone mention Pascal. He's a total boss in science, math and writing, though I find his philosophy lacking. I'd totally give the guy a hug, though.
Last edited:
Wirey
Fartist
Larry
Curly
Moe
All life's questions answered.
[youtube]a4-spBDcJyk[/youtube]
The Three Stooges - Pie Fight - YouTube
Curly
Moe
All life's questions answered.
[youtube]a4-spBDcJyk[/youtube]
The Three Stooges - Pie Fight - YouTube
BSM1
What? Me worry?
[
[youtube]a4-spBDcJyk[/youtube]
The Three Stooges - Pie Fight - YouTube[/quote]
The originals only. Shemp and Curly Joe just weren't the same.
All life's questions answered.
[youtube]a4-spBDcJyk[/youtube]
The Three Stooges - Pie Fight - YouTube[/quote]
The originals only. Shemp and Curly Joe just weren't the same.
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
I'm not particularly enamored with any well-known philosophers; in my view, they cater to the lowest common intellectual denominator. Many of their philosophies are fraught with endless paradox and aren't the least bit practical. I prefer to read and listen to individuals who live their philosophy. That's why I like Lao Tzu's Tao te Ching.
dust1n
Zindīq
I don't get that. It would seem to me that the Tao te Ching is almost entirely paradoxes and ambiguity.
xkatz
Well-Known Member
That and fact that Taoism is just mostly "going with the flow" from my understanding.
VictoriousPumpkin
New Member
Spinoza would definitely be one of the three. I haven't decided on the other two.
Silvercoat
New Member
Plato, Augustine, Descartes
In order from greatest to least:
1. Ayn Rand - She inspired a lot of my philosophy and if I hadn't read into her stuff I wouldn't understand how Capitalism would work out.
2. F. Neitzsche - He's just awesome, even though I disagree with him on a FEW unimportant parts.
3. Epicurus - He knew his **** man, and he didn't really teach the full concept, I think there's more that he left out, and I want to learn from the man the complete path to pleasure.
1. Ayn Rand - She inspired a lot of my philosophy and if I hadn't read into her stuff I wouldn't understand how Capitalism would work out.
2. F. Neitzsche - He's just awesome, even though I disagree with him on a FEW unimportant parts.
3. Epicurus - He knew his **** man, and he didn't really teach the full concept, I think there's more that he left out, and I want to learn from the man the complete path to pleasure.
And when he was dying in agony from kidney stones, despite teaching about the pursuit of modest pleasures and the avoidance of pain for much of his life, he nonetheless remained a complete boss; mentally composed.
AdamsDream
Member
1. Aristotle, walks through nature in Greece with him, discussing and arguing about everything.
2. David Hume, philosopher from my very young years so nice memories, intelligent, likeable character, gave a fine criticism of the design argument, had racist ideas so I'ld have to correct him on that.
3. Raymond Gaita: alive, read 'The philosopher and his dog' and you understand why.
I have a list of others, depending on how much time I can or would have to spend with them but those three alone would fill many years of great conversation, argument, enjoyment, relaxed evenings and amusement. Add Spinoza, Bohr and Einstein if you will call them philosophers, some old Greeks, Marcus Aurelius (reading 'personal annotitions' now, or whatever the english translation is), Doris lessing, Leo Apostel,..
2. David Hume, philosopher from my very young years so nice memories, intelligent, likeable character, gave a fine criticism of the design argument, had racist ideas so I'ld have to correct him on that.
3. Raymond Gaita: alive, read 'The philosopher and his dog' and you understand why.
I have a list of others, depending on how much time I can or would have to spend with them but those three alone would fill many years of great conversation, argument, enjoyment, relaxed evenings and amusement. Add Spinoza, Bohr and Einstein if you will call them philosophers, some old Greeks, Marcus Aurelius (reading 'personal annotitions' now, or whatever the english translation is), Doris lessing, Leo Apostel,..
Last edited:
One reservation I have about many famous philosophers is that the majority of them were men, and a significant subset of those men were sexist because those were the times they lived in.
So for example Aristotle is probably my #1 influence in terms of philosophy, but the guy was kind of a tool with regards to his thoughts about women. He viewed us as inferior. So I have to kind of politely ignore that aspect of his character when I'm talking about how good some of his writings were.
So when I say I'd like to meet him as one of my top three, it's kind of with the understanding that if he were in today's world, his views on the sexes would change.
That's a problem with most people from older times in general. Like, some of the U.S. founding fathers were polymaths, but also had sympathies with slavery or owned slaves, and didn't give women the right to vote.
Many people in history have had genius level intellect and yet in today's world have some unspeakably stupid views on some matters of race, sex, religion, etc.
So for example Aristotle is probably my #1 influence in terms of philosophy, but the guy was kind of a tool with regards to his thoughts about women. He viewed us as inferior. So I have to kind of politely ignore that aspect of his character when I'm talking about how good some of his writings were.
So when I say I'd like to meet him as one of my top three, it's kind of with the understanding that if he were in today's world, his views on the sexes would change.
That's a problem with most people from older times in general. Like, some of the U.S. founding fathers were polymaths, but also had sympathies with slavery or owned slaves, and didn't give women the right to vote.
Many people in history have had genius level intellect and yet in today's world have some unspeakably stupid views on some matters of race, sex, religion, etc.
AdamsDream
Member
Good point. Obvious one but probably it needs mentioning. It allso would be a lively and interesting topic of discussion with them. On the racist issue I can imagine Hume looking at comparative IQ tests because he wouldn't like to give up without at least a bit of a fight, ;-).
But your remark concerned women and yes, there we have a problem. Put Gaita on my list, who reflects a lot of my ideas -he'ld be the sounding board I dream about- so he's probably ok but he's still alive and kicking. Noah Chomsky is probably allright and I see I forgot to put him on the reserve list though I like him very much. Leo Apostel I know, he was allways an advocate of equal rights. He's not a historical figure, I know, but grew up in a time when equal rights still weren't evident.
As to women philosophers... I could have put Hannah Arendt on it, she was Heidegger's student and lover and surpassed him I think but I'm not enough acquainted with her work and ideas.
The older, historical philosophers, I admit I'm at a loss there.
I like Spinoza but he argues that women, being weak by nature, cannot rule allthough he seems uneasy about it, 'But of this enough' he concludes in the short chapter where he writes about it. And he was in love with a very clever woman, which speaks a little in his favor and maybe explains it.
We have the Stoics offcourse. Seneca was allright on women's status and rights. And Locke maybe, he said at least Adam had no right to dominate Eve,
. The real mysogenics often are just bad philosophers, a few exceptions apart.
John Stuart Mill, should allso be on my reserve list, allso wrote a book or essay on 'the subjection of women', among other things he advocates the right of women to vote, which at the time was rather a radical statement. Plato is sometimes mentioned, as he gives women equal rights of education but in a sense that makes him worse he thought women were incomplete and their highest aspiration should be to become a man.. You could compare him to a benevolent christian fundi.
Anyhow, I can understand that growing up in a world where women were uneducated and being a scientist or philosopher was made easy by women caring for their needs it wasn't easy but still: at the most I could understand a Spinoza position, anything more is difficult to comprehend and makes me either doubt their intellectual capabilities or their character as a human. A really intelligent and good philosopher should be able to think outside the box that is filled with contemporary values.
But your remark concerned women and yes, there we have a problem. Put Gaita on my list, who reflects a lot of my ideas -he'ld be the sounding board I dream about- so he's probably ok but he's still alive and kicking. Noah Chomsky is probably allright and I see I forgot to put him on the reserve list though I like him very much. Leo Apostel I know, he was allways an advocate of equal rights. He's not a historical figure, I know, but grew up in a time when equal rights still weren't evident.
As to women philosophers... I could have put Hannah Arendt on it, she was Heidegger's student and lover and surpassed him I think but I'm not enough acquainted with her work and ideas.
The older, historical philosophers, I admit I'm at a loss there.
I like Spinoza but he argues that women, being weak by nature, cannot rule allthough he seems uneasy about it, 'But of this enough' he concludes in the short chapter where he writes about it. And he was in love with a very clever woman, which speaks a little in his favor and maybe explains it.
We have the Stoics offcourse. Seneca was allright on women's status and rights. And Locke maybe, he said at least Adam had no right to dominate Eve,
. The real mysogenics often are just bad philosophers, a few exceptions apart. John Stuart Mill, should allso be on my reserve list, allso wrote a book or essay on 'the subjection of women', among other things he advocates the right of women to vote, which at the time was rather a radical statement. Plato is sometimes mentioned, as he gives women equal rights of education but in a sense that makes him worse he thought women were incomplete and their highest aspiration should be to become a man.. You could compare him to a benevolent christian fundi.
Anyhow, I can understand that growing up in a world where women were uneducated and being a scientist or philosopher was made easy by women caring for their needs it wasn't easy but still: at the most I could understand a Spinoza position, anything more is difficult to comprehend and makes me either doubt their intellectual capabilities or their character as a human. A really intelligent and good philosopher should be able to think outside the box that is filled with contemporary values.
Leave it to geniuses to assume others of their race or gender will also be geniuses. These days we know better that geniuses are the ones with horrible eyesight.