General
07 Jul 03
07 Jul 03
Originally posted by SirLoseALotAlthough there have been threads whose subject matters were philosophical, I don't recall there being a thread devoted to philosophers themselves. This is quite understandable given the philosophers are, by and large, both arrogant and foul-tempered. 😉
I'm just surprised there isn't such a thread.
I'm sure this one will fill up quickly though😉
But it has been a while since anything of substance was debated in the forums, even the flaming has been rather tame.
07 Jul 03
OK. I have a question to which I know not the answer.
Who is the greatest of the ancient philosophers, why, and would any modern philosophers "match up" or "make the grade" when comparing them? 😉
Seeing as I may shortly be studying philosophy I have had this question on my mind for some time now. 🙂
07 Jul 03
Originally posted by ChessNutEven better question: What would define a modern philosopher? Can you think of one from this age that would be even close to an ancient philosopher? Or, are modern philosophers more like a Carl Sagan: "the" acknowledged leader within a field who sets the theories and thought processes of that field.
OK. I have a question to which I know not the answer.
Who is the greatest of the ancient philosophers, why, and would any modern philosophers "match up" or "make the grade" when comparing them? 😉
Seeing as I may shortly be studying philosophy I have had this question on my mind for some time now. 🙂
My theory is that todays philosophers are focused within one field instead of being a more well rounded student.
07 Jul 03
Writers such as Thomas Kuhn or Noam Chomsky (whether you agree or disagree with them) have had an impact on many fields, just as the ancient philosophers did. Unfortunately, the plane of human knowledge has grown so large that it is rare for any one individual to have expertise in more than one or two fields. That's not a sad commentary on the state of modern philosophy -- it's just a remarkable achievement of the growth and depth of human knowledge.
07 Jul 03
Originally posted by willatkinsThere are plenty of philosophers from the twentieth century whose level of thought eclipses that of the ancients. People like Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean Baudrillard are several who were all active in the twentieth century. Most of them did not list "philosopher" as their primary occupation, and many would even deny that they were philosophers at all. Even so, their combined intellectual output has contributed as much, or more, to the advancement of philosophy as the ancients did.
Even better question: What would define a modern philosopher? Can you think of one from this age that would be even close to an ancient philosopher? Or, are modern philosophers more like a Carl Sagan: "the" acknowledged leader within a field who sets the theories and thought processes of that field.
My theory is that todays philosophers are focused within one field instead of being a more well rounded student.
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by ChessNutMy Apostle underling studying philosophy??? Damn you to hell and back. Who the hell do you think you are? A freethinker? Go make your bed with the likes of Rob and BEnnett and be coddled by their so-called brains. And another thing......uh never mind.....just kidding. No need to check your brain at the door. Welcome back, Bryan. Much love, Kirk
OK. I have a question to which I know not the answer.
Who is the greatest of the ancient philosophers, why, and would any modern philosophers "match up" or "make the grade" when comparing them? 😉
Seeing as I may shortly be studying philosophy I have had this question on my mind for some time now. 🙂
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by ChessNutThat's a difficult question without first knowing what you take to be a measure of a philosopher's greatness. The Modern Philosophers are generally considered to run from Descartes down through around Kant, do you mean to ask whether there are any contemporary philosophers whose work can stand against that of the ancients?
OK. I have a question to which I know not the answer.
Who is the greatest of the ancient philosophers, why, and would any modern philosophers "match up" or "make the grade" when comparing them? 😉
Seeing as I may shortly be studying philosophy I have had this question on my mind for some time now. 🙂
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by ChessNutAlfred North Whitehead (a 20C philosopher) once called all of Western Philosophy 'a footnote to Plato'. This is probably a bit extreme, but it does illustrate the point that the ancients had an advantage over modern philosophers in that they were the surveyors of perhaps virgin ground, philosophically speaking, and were able to think very 'broad' thoughts, leaving others to dispute endlessly and fill in details. Plato wrote seminal works on political theory, appearance vs reality, ethics and much else, that address issues that are still discussed today. My favourite of the ancients, though, is Heraclitus: 'if not for the sun, it would be night all the time'. Ahhh, the profundity...
OK. I have a question to which I know not the answer.
Who is the greatest of the ancient philosophers, why, and would any modern philosophers "match up" or "make the grade" when comparing them? 😉
Seeing as I may shortly be studying philosophy I have had this question on my mind for some time now. 🙂
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by kirksey957Yeah Yeah Fruitcake. Simmer Down Now. 😉 Did I mention that it will be a minor in Religous Studies? 🙄
My Apostle underling studying philosophy??? Damn you to hell and back. Who the hell do you think you are? A freethinker? Go make your bed with the likes of Rob and BEnnett and be coddled by their so-called brains. And another thing......uh never mind.....just kidding. No need to check your brain at the door. Welcome back, Bryan. Much love, Kirk
ps. (I knew you were kidding and I never left. 😛)
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by bbarrThat's a fair question and one which is difficult to answer as "Greatness" is a relative term. I guess I would have to say that yes, greatness as in whose works could stand against that of the ancients.
That's a difficult question without first knowing what you take to be a measure of a philosopher's greatness. The Modern Philosophers are generally considered to run from Descartes down through around Kant, do you mean to ask whether there are any contemporary philosophers whose work can stand against that of the ancients?
Still it may be difficult to answer because, as stated in the other posts, human knowledge has grown so vast that it may have become reall difficult for someone to really 'stand out' in modern philosophy. Still I find it an interesting question.
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by bbarrDo you mean to say that you think that no one who came after Kant is worthy of consideration?
That's a difficult question without first knowing what you take to be a measure of a philosopher's greatness. The Modern Philosophers are generally considered to run from Descartes down through around Kant, do you mean to ask whether there are any contemporary philosophers whose work can stand against that of the ancients?
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by rwingettNot at all, I was just wondering if Bryan was using 'Modern' in the technical sense (referring to the rationalists and empiricists from the 16th through the 19th century) or in the more colloquial sense referring to contemporary philosophers. I think that there are contemporary philosophers in both the analytic and continental traditional that are more worthy of discussion than the grey eminences of ancient world). I, for one, have learned more philosophy from careful studies of Descartes and Hume than I did from slogging through Aristotle. Amongst the philosophers of the past century, Wittgenstein, Quine and Sellars all contributed to the development of epistemology, Hilary Putnam has made substantial contributions to all areas of philosophy outside of ethics, and Jerry Fodor is the best philosopher of mind working today. Although the breadth of the work of contemporary philosophers is necessarily limited (there is just too much ground to cover nowadays) the depth of their insight into their fields places them, in my estimation, on a par with the Moderns in terms of 'greatness'.
Do you mean to say that you think that no one who came after Kant is worthy of consideration?
08 Jul 03
Originally posted by bbarrPeace offer. I really do look forward to your posts because I learn from them. I admit to being "mean spirited" to you in the past, but want you to know that I really do admire your abilities. Once in a while I reflect upon the aspect of life called "the end" and realize that my ego often gets in the way of my true feelings and desires. I only desire to learn and progress at this stage of life. I have had enough of pride and egoism. Keep the posts coming. Several of us at RHP are waiting for a "shift". You got the ball. There is only so much "i'm bored" that we can take! Expound ! Damn It! Expound! <might rib you from time to time, but only cause you're human>
Not at all, I was just wondering if Bryan was using 'Modern' in the technical sense (referring to the rationalists and empiricists from the 16th through the 19th century) or in the more colloquial sense referring to contemporary philosophers. I think that there are contemporary philosophers in both the analytic and continental traditional that are more wort ...[text shortened]... their fields places them, in my estimation, on a par with the Moderns in terms of 'greatness'.