22 Sep 05
Your question prompts another question as why one would have seven favourite philosophers? I could rattle off a few names, but I could give no reason why I would nominate them as being my favourite....I have read some of the following:
Machiavelli
Rosseau
Thomas Paine
I am not too sure if you considere Thomas More or Mao Tse-tung as philosophers.
23 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI'm told that Nietzsche is not considered much of a philosopher by many academics. What do you say?
Shankara, Plotinus, Aristotle, Kant , Berkeley, Russell, Wittgenstein
Right, my philosophical faves...well...
Pascal, Nietszche, Kierkegaard, Lewis Carroll, Foucault, Baudrillard, Bachelard.
23 Sep 05
Originally posted by dottewellI like Nietszche because he's funny, and his writing can be exceptionally powerful. Of course he can be ridiculous too...I cringe at his remarks on women...
I can't understand why Berkeley or Russell are so popular and as for virtually everyone chosing Nietzsche - well, really.
Why do you say "well really"?
23 Sep 05
Originally posted by dottewellYou think they understand him?
He is the pet thinker of the misunderstood misanthropic teen.
Nietszche had a great influence on 20th century artists--both good ones (Yeats, for example) and not-so-good ones (Hitler). Philosophers like Foucault & Deleuze also owe him a great debt.
23 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNietzsche wasn't particularly rigorous, which is why many analytic philosophers (including myself) don't find his work compelling. This is not to say that his work included nothing of value. I still like the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction.
I'm told that Nietzsche is not considered much of a philosopher by many academics. What do you say?
Right, my philosophical faves...well...
Pascal, Nietszche, Kierkegaard, Lewis Carroll, Foucault, Baudrillard, Bachelard.
23 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrWhich disciplines if any do you think have taken Nietszche to heart (apart from literature studies)?
Nietzsche wasn't particularly rigorous, which is why many analytic philosophers (including myself) don't find his work compelling. This is not to say that his work included nothing of value. I still like the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction.