So, the latest in the BBC's "nations favourites" is Karl Marx, apparently the Greatest Philosopher of All Time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher.shtml).

Personally, I'd have gone for Hume. His clear-thinking is at the heart of pretty much everything I believe.

I admit to being not very familiar with Marx, other than by reputation and through reading the Writers & Readers "Beginners' Guide" many years ago. But his body of work strikes me as very important but not as ground-breaking or fundamental to philosophy as Hume's.

Who would you choose and why?

As a paleo-conservative, Dan, I would choose Edmund Burke ['the father of conservatism]. As a close second, I would choose Roger Scruton who is such an antidote to dreadful postmodern and poststructuralist thinkers.

Confucius : "Conversation on a wedding night is like wheels on a tomato - unnecessary"

(He might not have said that, I got it from a film where Peter Sellars is playing Charlie Chan and keeps quoting him).

Originally posted by timo
As a close second, I would choose Roger Scruton who is such an antidote to dreadful postmodern and poststructuralist thinkers.
Coincidence - I was reading Scruton's "Very Short Introduction" to Kant this morning as I walked the dog.

(oops... I just typed "as I walked the god"... I think religion is playing on my mind rather at present)

I was surprised that Marx was selected.
He obviously revolutionised thinking on many levels but I think his main claim to fame was as an economist. He was also an excellent , lively journalist. I know this might seem like splitting hairs but I wouldn't put Marx quite in the same category as , say Hume , Spinoza , Plato , Russel or Wittgenstein.
Their thoughts were more wide-ranging , in my opinion , whereas Marx , even in his philosophical role was more concerned with History and Economics.
In fact he once stated , " Philosophers interpret the world. Our job is to change it ".

Dan, let us be clear about whether we mean 'favourite' philosopher or 'greatest philosopher of all time' here. As previously stated, I really like the work of Burke and Scruton, but Kant [whose Interpretivism I take issue with on so many levels] is probably the greatest and most influential thinker in the West since the Enlightenment. His ideas are just as 'revolutionary' as those of Marx, in a sense. The basic premise that 'reality' is 'socially-constructed' has changed the worlds ot the arts, humanities and sciences in incalculable ways.

Mind you, the Haiku-like brilliance of Nick 2's 'one-liners' on the forum take some beating for their mixture of effortless wit, intellectual rigour and elegant simplicity...

Originally posted by nick2
Confucius : "Conversation on a wedding night is like wheels on a tomato - unnecessary"

(He might not have said that, I got it from a film where Peter Sellars is playing Charlie Chan and keeps quoting him).

Confucius also say "man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day, but man with hole in both pockets will not feel two cocky" ;)

Originally posted by DanSumption
So, the latest in the BBC's "nations favourites" is Karl Marx, apparently the Greatest Philosopher of All Time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher.shtml).

Personally, I'd have gone for Hume. His clear-thinking is at the heart of pretty much everything I believe.

I admit to being not very familiar with Marx, other than by reputation and through reading the Writers & Readers "Beginners' Guide" many years ago. But his body of work strikes me as very important but not as ground-breaking or fundamental to philosophy as Hume's.

Who would you choose and why?

Karl Marx? My goodness! What bloody awful taste in philosophers the nation has. Marx was not really a philosopher at all, if we take the literal meaning of philosophy to be a lover of knowledge and a searcher for truth about the world and our place in it. His mission, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, was not to interpret the world, but to change it. In order to do this, he in fact misinterpreted the world in all sorts of ways in order to justify and legitimise his millenarian mission. What he did was to take bits of philosophy derived largely from Hegel, bits of Economics (derived from mid-19th century economists, based on ideas which were already out of date at the time at which he was writing) and bits of primitive Sociology, creating a simplistic praxiological world view that many found appealing, unfortunately in a pied piper-esque way. Of course, Marx was long dead before the Bolsheviks took power and it is likely that he would have strongly opposed the Leninist interpretation of his doctrines. But if you examine his writings and predictions, Marx was wrong on just about everything.

I'd also go for Hume - taking things on "faith" won't ever be intellectually respectable again because of him - with a consolation prize for Kant (for his theory of knowledge, which is partly an extension of Hume's ideas anyway).

Marx was trained in philosophy, but a commentary on Feuerbach (who?) doesn't really make you a great philosopher. He was a great polemicist, though, and a better economist than he's sometimes given credit for, maybe because his economics is obscured by being couched in the language of German idealism.

Originally posted by owdlad
Confucius also say "man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day, but man with hole in both pockets will not feel two cocky" ;)

Man with itchy bum wakes up with smelly finger.

Good point timo, for me they are one and the same so it's not an issue. Speaking of issues, I've only just started on Kant (via Scruton) but I've a feeling I'm going to have "issues" with him, so far I've read some rather erudite-sounding stuff which puts me in mind of the knots Descartes tied himself in when trying to prove God's existence. But I'm sure the man has much to commend him.

I suppose I mean "greatest" but "favourite" will do just as well, the justification is the interesting part.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
I'd also go for Hume - taking things on "faith" won't ever be intellectually respectable again because of him - with a consolation prize for Kant (for his theory of knowledge, which is partly an extension of Hume's ideas anyway).

Marx was trained in philosophy, but a commentary on Feuerbach (who?) doesn't really make you a great philosopher. He was a great polemicist, though, and a better economist than he's sometimes given credit for, maybe because his economics is obscured by being couched in the language of German idealism.

Marx had no understanding of Economics at all. Despite the many hours he spent poring over works of Economics and Economic Statistics in the British Library, he had not a clue about the nature and functioning of a market economy (he ought to have spent more time studying and absorbing the works of Adam Smith). Moreover, it has now been conclusively demonstrated that Marx in fact 'doctored' some of the statistics he obtained from the famous blue books and also blatantly misinterpeted other evidence in order to support his arguments in his writings on Economics. Moreover, as far as we know, this famous champion of the workers of the world never set foot in a factory and knew nothing about industry or commerce (except how to cadge money off the industrialist Engels).

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently ******.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's ******.

(Well, somebody had to do it - mojo)

Favourite Philosopher: None.

All *knowing* is mental 'action' and as such, obscures the unborn, unspoken, unspeakable truth that is expressed in perfect silence.

Originally posted by Jamie
All *knowing* is mental 'action' and as such, obscures the unborn, unspoken, unspeakable truth that is expressed in perfect silence.
I wish you hadn't said that.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Marx had no understanding of Economics at all. Despite the many hours he spent poring over works of Economics and Economic Statistics in the British Library, he had not a clue about the nature and functioning of a market economy (he ought to have spent more time studying and absorbing the works of Adam Smith). Moreover, it has now been conclusively demonstrated that Marx in fact 'doctored' some of the statistics he obtained from the famous blue books and also blatantly misinterpeted other evidence in order to support his arguments in his writings on Economics. Moreover, as far as we know, this famous champion of the workers of the world never set foot in a factory and knew nothing about industry or commerce (except how to cadge money off the industrialist Engels).

Well I wouldn't even say Marx was a "great" economist - Malthus is probably my favourite 19th century economist - but he (Marx) did have some good insights, e.g. his account of the origin and nature of money in Part I of Capital seems to me more insightful than the comparable bits of Wealth of Nations.

Lord C makes some good points about the severe deficits within Marxian perspectives. That is really what they are-'perspectives', rather than 'true' philosophy. Marx's absolutist economic determinism, and reductionist conceptualisation of societal divisions does indeed borrow heavily from Hegel. Mind you, Marx never denied that, to be fair. The idea that the economy is the 'motorforce', the most important variable re social change, together with the idea that change can only come from conflict [in this case the 'class war' between the proletariat and the owners of the means of production] does not hold water. Marx's historical materialism, in which it is posited that all human societies evolve towards communism, has been proved to be spurious falsehood. As our postmodernist friends might say, the Marxian 'grand narrative' is now very much discredited.

Having said that, Marxian thought is still influential throughout the world, and continues to 'inspire' revolutionaries everywhere. Perhaps Marx's overemphasis on the economy [ he uses it as part of a unitary explanation for societal change] reflects the time in which he lived. In those days, variables such as the social structures of gender and race were not taken as seriously as class. It was widely perceived that in the West that women were 'naturally' intellectually inferior to men, and there was academic consensus upon a racial hierarchy in terms of perceived innate intelligence. Hence Marx's concentration upon the economy and class conflict in relation to societal revolution.

There are still pockets of Marxism throughout Britain [his work is particularly popular in Liverpool]. Modern day Marxists often defend their hero against the charges that his promises have not come true [in terms of the proletariat revolution] along the lines that capitalism has not yet reached 'crisis' stage. They still believe, rather touchingly, that the capitalist 'system' contains the seeds of its own destruction, and will collapse. Then, a new dawn of communism will emerge, which is 'natural' for humankind.

Frankly, I loathe Marxism and resent all the misery it has caused.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I wish you hadn't said that.

What's in a wish!?

Originally posted by Jamie
What's in a wish!?

Jamie,
What 'truth' is 'expressed in perfect silence'?

Originally posted by DanSumption

Originally posted by Jamie
What's in a wish!?


;)

Originally posted by DanSumption

Originally posted by Jamie
What's in a wish!?


:o

That's clear then.

Originally posted by timo
Jamie,
What 'truth' is 'expressed in perfect silence'?

I've just said, it's the unspeakable truth.

... and it certainly can't be grasped by the intellect, but don't let me stop you from trying.

;)

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Well I wouldn't even say Marx was a "great" economist - Malthus is probably my favourite 19th century economist - but he (Marx) did have some good insights, e.g. his account of the origin and nature of money in Part I of Capital seems to me more insightful than the comparable bits of Wealth of Nations.

Well, in relation to Malthus, I'm pleased that you said 'favourite' rather than great. In fact Malthus is usually cited in textbooks as someone whose economic predictions were proven wrong (notably about the relationship between population growth and economic growth).

You deserve praise for ploughing your way through the turgid drivel of Capital (probably very few of even the most ardent Marxists have ever managed this). As for his treatment of money in Part 1, this is very largely derivative, although to be fair he did add his own spin on it. The paucity of Marx's contribution to the understanding of Economics was exposed when the Bolsheviks - and later on other regimes espousing his name - took power. Marx left no blueprint relating to the economics of a socialist society, so his adherents made it up as they went along - leading to the absurdities of the command economy (of which Marx of course knew nothing).

My favourite was always Plato.

I always found the 18th / 19th century lads (Hume, JS Mill, Wittgeinstein, Kant, etc) to be really dull - though i do appreciate this may be due to the language of the day rather than their writing skills.

Plato, on the other hand, is (i think) a right good read. So perhaps "most entertaining" rather than favourite.

(OK, I'm finished with the one-handed clapping now)

Plato may be a good read, but that doesn't change the fact that he was, in most respects, wrong.

Fair play to him for getting the ball rolling and everything, but I think history has largely left the "Platonic Ideal" behind.

Marx believed it was not only his job, but the job of philosophers to change the world -
Karl Marx
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.

He certainly succeeded in that, where most other philosophers are simply historical footnotes.

His most useful legacy is in critique rather than philosophy; rather than any implementations of 'Marxism'. As he famously said
I am not a Marxist . Lots of people employ marxist critique without even knowing it, it has become an ubiquitous tool for all sorts of analysis. Many people simply think like that without knowing it is a marxist analysis. This contribution to philosophy and history is not to be ignored.

The fact is that Marx is the only 'philosopher' to have had such a large impact on the world in every sphere.

Hume was a brillliant epistemologist, but cannot be forgiven for starting Jeremy Bentham on the road to "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" and all the wrongheaded crap that followed. Although he did write on politics, I would not consider him to be a political philosopher.

Roger Scruton on Kant (an even better epistemologist than hume) is very interesting and that VSI is about the closest I have come to grasping Kantian ideas about knowledge.

The greatest living philosopher and author of "Reality is what you can get away with" is Robert Anton Wilson. His philosophy revolves around not believing a thing he says, just because he says it, and acknowledging our simian ancestry. We all inhabit our own, creatively constructed 'reality tunnel', and we havethe power to alter that reality at will.

But the daddy of all philosophy is, in my opinion, Epicurus, and his roman protege, Lucretius. Not just early atomic theory, but a whole host of revolutionary ideas sprayed from the mind of this man, much of which has stood unchallenged for over 2000 years.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Fair play to him for getting the ball rolling and everything, but I think history has largely left the "Platonic Ideal" behind.
You think?

Saifa's point about the 'readable' qualities of Plato's work made me reflect a little. Sartre's work is, in my view, a 'good read' but I do not agree with the Existentialist views expressed within. The same goes for Camus, whose similar views of a god-less universe, are entertainingly expressed both in philosophical treatises and novels. Often it can be fun just to 'sit back' metaphorically as well as literally, and just absorb the writer's description of the world. Criticism can come afterwards, in a period of reflection. 'Going with the flow', in common parlance, can be fun. Mind you, Camus's 'The Outsider' is hardly a merry, uplifting romp...

favorite philospher... Jung

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Well, in relation to Malthus, I'm pleased that you said 'favourite' rather than great. In fact Malthus is usually cited in textbooks as someone whose economic predictions were proven wrong (notably about the relationship between population growth and economic growth).

You deserve praise for ploughing your way through the turgid drivel of Capital (probably very few of even the most ardent Marxists have ever managed this). As for his treatment of money in Part 1, this is very largely derivative, although to be fair he did add his own spin on it. The paucity of Marx's contribution to the understanding of Economics was exposed when the Bolsheviks - and later on other regimes espousing his name - took power. Marx left no blueprint relating to the economics of a socialist society, so his adherents made it up as they went along - leading to the absurdities of the command economy (of which Marx of course knew nothing).

Malthus: True that his idea that population increases exponentially whereas food only increases linearly hasn't been borne out, but the central insight is true - sooner or later, if you don't control the population, then something will control it for you (war or starvation or disease). But I was thinking more of Principles of Political Economy (esp. the last part) than Essay on Population.

Marx: Yes he was quite derivative, e.g. in taking over the Smith/Ricardo version of the labour theory of value (another place where Malthus has the edge). But if you think he's turgid, you've obviously never tried reading Hegel! (Or Sartre, for that matter - I'm surprised and impressed that timo finds Being and Nothingness a 'good read'!)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]Marx believed it was not only his job, but the job of philosophers to change the world -

why does Karl Marx only like herbal tea?

Cos all proper tea is theft!

Boom boom

I am puzzled as to why Phan rates Robert Anton Wilson so highly. Whilst I respect Phan's views [as he is aware], I do not think that Wilson is anywhere as 'original' as presented here. Regarding the idea that 'reality' is socially-constructed, that human social actors ascribe 'meaning' to the world, Kant was making exactly the same point in the late-Enlightenment period. Pascal coined the phrase, 'there is a 'truth' for you, and a 'truth' for me', and Nietzsche is famous for his relativistic views. Postmodernists like Lyotard, and Poststructuralists such as Foucault have also made careers out of a denial of absolute, intrinsic 'truth'.

As regards references to our 'simian ancestors', there is a vast literature of Sociobiological, Social Darwinist and Evolutionary Psychological work by the likes of Robin Dunbar etc that makes the same points Robert Anton Wilson does, only in greater intellectual depth.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
You think?
Therefore...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The greatest living philosopher and author of "Reality is what you can get away with" is Robert Anton Wilson.
Ahh... the thinking man's Dan Brown :D

Originally posted by timo
Sartre's work is, in my view, a 'good read' but I do not agree with the Existentialist views expressed within.
When I studied philosophy A-Level, I read Sartre and thought "mmm, yes, so true, this guy talks a lot of sense". Immediately afterwards I read Hume & Ayer, glanced back over the Sartre and thought "what the hell was I thinking?"

Originally posted by timo
there is a vast literature of Sociobiological, Social Darwinist and Evolutionary Psychological work by the likes of Robin Dunbar etc that makes the same points Robert Anton Wilson does, only in greater intellectual depth.
Timo, you don't work with Robin do you? From what I've gleaned from occasional cryptic references, you work in roughly that sort of field in the Liverpool area, correct? He was PhD tutor to a friend of mine (http://www.sanjida.co.uk/) (ex-girlfriend actually) when at London.

Perhaps we ought to have a thread about books about great philosophers. My nomination would go to Ray Monk's excellent biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein - its a marvellous read which provides many insights into the nature and philosophy of this strange man.

Originally posted by timo
Nietzsche is famous for his relativistic views
Ahh... the thinking man's Oscar Wilde :D

(not because of his ideas or anything, just because he came up with some cracking one-liners)

My faves... (for now)

Robert Anton Wilson - funny chap - 23 does appear alot doesn't it?

Satre - thought he was being chased by a lobster and smoked a lot - like him.

Aristotle - thought that when mentruating women looked in the mirror it turned red. Hmmm. Interesting chap.

Pythagoras - didn't like beans.

Socrates - cos he's in Bill and Ted - 'nuf said

If we extend it to favourite Economists, I think my own favourite would probably be J.A.Hobson. I am well aware that much of his economic reasoning is flawed, but he did provide many useful insights into the nature of late 19th century European imperialism (which he strongly opposed).

As for the greatest Economist of the 20th century, my own award would go to F. Hayek, in particular for his insights into the nature of market economies, his critiques of command economies and for the links he made between economics and psychology. He was also a fierce critic of econometrics and of the mathematical schools of Economics, which have led the subject to various dead ends. His ideas about what he termed the 'catallaxy' provide in my view the best insights we have into why market economies work.

I can't think of a great many economists, they're all so dull (OK, Keynes, Friedman... err, that's about it), but my favourite economist would have to be my A-Level Economics teacher -- erm, I forget his name, Ian Haddow, I think -- for the fact that he managed to get me to achieve an A-Grade at a time when I was far more interested in getting stoned than in learning, and didn't really do as well as I ought to have in other subjects.

I only realised quite how interesting (or rather, non-boring) he had managed to make Economics when I reached Bristol University, where I dropped Economics after my first year because it was soooo tedious (although admittedly not as tedious as Sociology, which I also dropped) when taught by Roger Berry (now Labour MP for Kingswood (http://www.labour.org.uk/maps/locinfo.phtml?ctid=2906))

Originally posted by chickmonk
Robert Anton Wilson - funny chap - 23 does appear alot doesn't it?
Appeared far too bloody often for my liking when I used to hang out with Spiral Tribe (http://www.t0.or.at/spiral23/spiral.htm).

Thanks milord, I'll check out Hobson, who I've never heard of - am currently working through "classic" economics texts in chronological order. Haven't got to Hayek yet but have heard of him as being Thatcher's guru.

Captain,

Hayek was indeed Thatcher's guru, but to regard this as his only claim to 'fame' would be to do him a serious disservice. He was actually as much a philosopher as an Economist (which is why he is relevant to this thread) and he has much to say about human nature and society. His works are as readable as they are profound and start from the premise that Economics is not about mathematical relationships, but rather about human psychology and the organization of societies. Incidentally, coming back to Malthus, Hayek wrote about Malthus and rejected the idea that there was an inevitable connection between population growth and scarcity. In his words ('The Fatal Conceit', p. 121) 'The modern idea that population growth threatens worldwide pauperisation is simply a mistake'.

Originally posted by timo
I am puzzled as to why Phan rates Robert Anton Wilson so highly.
This is why

Karl Marx
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.

He writes for the common man, and his syncretism of philosophy, psychology and the occult makes far more sense than any of the philosphers yet mentioned.

And the man on the clapham omnibus is more likely to be reading Prometheus Rising than Tractatus Logico Philosphicus or a Critique of Pure Reason, being as one is entertaining and far out, whilst the other is dry and impenetrable.

So why are all these philosophers men? (with a few notable exceptions)

Robert Anton Wilson is completely barking. funny though:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

And the man on the clapham omnibus is more likely to be reading Prometheus Rising than Tractatus Logico Philosphicus or a Critique of Pure Reason, being as one is entertaining and far out, whilst the other is dry and impenetrable.


Hume's Enquiries aren't dry and impenetrable :thumbsup:

And anyway I don't know whether "the point" of philosophy is necessarily to change the world - I'd say it's got more in common with science than with, say, politics.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Hume's Enquiries aren't dry and impenetrable :thumbsup:
Hear hear! I managed to get through them quite easily, which is more than I can say for a lot of (most) philosophy.

And I would also say Hume changed the world, by paving the way for a rationalisation of the scientific method.

Lord C,
Re Hayek as 'Thatcher's guru', is it not actually the case that Sir Keith Joseph was her 'real' guru? My impression has always been that Thatcher learned everything she knew about the neo-liberal brand of conservatism at the knee of Joseph [if you will forgive me for utilising such evocative imagery]. I would argue that it is actually the case that Hayek was Joseph's guru, alongside his other great hero- Adam Smith.

Arguably, Thatcher's social authoritarian instincts [influenced by the likes of Digby Anderson of the Social Affairs Unit, and Roger Scruton, then editor of Salisbury Review and Professor at Birkbeck] coupled with the neo-liberal, free marketeer views of her mentor Keith Joseph, gave birth to the British version of 'the New Right'.

Nowadays, the term 'New Right' also includes those such as myself, who have a less economy-obsessed approach to conservatism, and are 'reluctant collectivists' on some issues- paleoconservatives.

Regards.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Hume's Enquiries aren't dry and impenetrable :thumbsup:

I didn't mention Hume, I'm sure he's riveting.

Dry and impenetrable:
Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - Wittgenstein
Critique of Pure reason. - Kant

Both were recanted as well, I believe.

I can't really comment on Hume as I've never read any. (Goes for most philosophers).

AJ Ayer is good, if you like that sort of thing, but if he's a good philosopher then Bertrand Russell is a great philosopher.

I gleaned this interesting anecdote from Wikipedia
At a party that same year Ayer, then 77, encountered Mike Tyson harassing Naomi Campbell and demanded Tyson stop. Tyson said
- "Do you know who the **** I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world."

Ayer replied
- "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic! We are both pre-eminent in our field; I suggest that we talk about this like rational men."

Now that is something to be proud of!

Has anyone read Russel's "In praise of idleness"? And once more, does anyone have a clue why so few philosophers are women? Is it because only men have the luxury of sitting about all day navel gazing?

Are any of you familiar with the work of Epicurus?

Epicureanism was one of the most influential philosophies in the Ancient world. Epicurus (ca. 341 – 271 BCE) wrote prolifically and held popular seminars in the garden of his home in Athens. He scandalized society by allowing women to attend his seminars on an equal footing to men. Nearly all of his writings were lost, but fortunately his teachings were summarized in pamphlets that his followers learnt by heart. For the next seven hundred years, throughout the Greek and Roman world, the humanist philosophy of Epicurus was a popular and influential model for living.

Like the Atomists, Epicurus argued that everything in the cosmos was ultimately composed of material atoms, and that all of our knowledge of the world came from our senses. (Unlike some of the more thoroughgoing sceptics of his day, Epicurus maintained that reliable knowledge of our world was possible.) Epicurus suggested that two things prevent people from trying to live a full and happy life: fear of the gods and fear of an afterlife. But the materialist philosophy of the Atomists removed the fear of the supernatural and the fear of death. Death meant annihilation for the person, because the mind (or soul) is composed of atoms that disperse upon death. Epicurus spoke of his "Four Herbs" to relieve the maladies of life:

"There is nothing to fear from gods,

There is nothing to feel in death,

Good can be attained,

Evil can be endured."


Epicurus’s succinct argument against fearing death, is as valid today as it was 2,300 years ago: "Thus that which is the most awful of evils, death, is nothing to us, since when we exist there is no death, and when there is death we do not exist." A common Epicurean epitaph that was placed on gravestones read:

"I was not

I was

I am not

I do not mind"

Epicurus described the purpose of philosophy as "the art of making life happy." He argued that nature and reason both show that pleasure is the sole good and that pain is the sole evil. But, contrary to some caricatures, the Epicureans did not encourage wanton indulgence in sensual pleasures. Epicurus argued that intellectual pleasures were better than physical pleasures—although both were necessary to live a full and happy life—and that "tranquillity of the soul" was a key component of pleasure. One must not be possessed by pleasures, but must possess the pleasure. Hedonistic indulgences might lead to short-term gratification, but one avoids them if they will cause disturbance and suffering in the longer-term. The Epicureans therefore argued for moderation and balance in all aspects of life. In one of Epicurus’s few surviving writings, his "Letter to Menoeceus", he wrote, "It is impossible to live pleasantly, without living wisely, virtuously and justly, just as we cannot live wisely, virtuously and justly without living pleasantly."

Epicurus placed particular emphasis on the pleasure of friendship. "Before eating your bread look for someone with whom to eat it," is a characteristic saying of Epicurus. His followers became famous for the bonds of friendship they developed, and Epicureans founded communities across the Greek and Roman world.

One of the greatest popularizers of the Epicurean philosophy was the Roman poet Lucretius (ca. 98-55 BCE.) His masterpiece On the Nature of Things expounded the naturalistic and humanist philosophy of Epicurus in six books of poetry, with almost 7,500 lines in total. Lucretius said of his work, "It is my great purpose to free men’s minds from superstition and [to accomplish this] I am adorning obscure thoughts with the beauty of poetry."

Lucretius’s glorious poem surely succeeded in his goal of popularising Epicurean philosophy in the Roman world. But with the rise of the intolerant religion of Christianity and the decline of Rome, the works of all non-Christian thinkers were destroyed or lost in the West. Europe entered the Dark Ages. Once learning did begin to recover in the medieval period, it was ruthlessly controlled by the Christian Church. It was not until the fifteenth century that the great classical philosophies were reintroduced to Europe in the rebirth of learning known as "The Renaissance."

still seems so relevant today..

Wow! Great post SHarper. I'm switching my vote to Epicurus.

Originally posted by SHarper
Are any of you familiar with the work of Epicurus?

still seems so relevant today..
yup
Originally posted by Phanerothyme
But the daddy of all philosophy is, in my opinion, Epicurus, and his roman protege, Lucretius. Not just early atomic theory, but a whole host of revolutionary ideas sprayed from the mind of this man, much of which has stood unchallenged for over 2000 years.

I have "the nature of things" on the shelf behind me.

Epicurus had insight into the human condition that speaks across the millenia, without question.

Originally posted by timo
Lord C,
Re Hayek as 'Thatcher's guru', is it not actually the case that Sir Keith Joseph was her 'real' guru? My impression has always been that Thatcher learned everything she knew about the neo-liberal brand of conservatism at the knee of Joseph [if you will forgive me for utilising such evocative imagery]. I would argue that it is actually the case that Hayek was Joseph's guru, alongside his other great hero- Adam Smith.

Arguably, Thatcher's social authoritarian instincts [influenced by the likes of Digby Anderson of the Social Affairs Unit, and Roger Scruton, then editor of Salisbury Review and Professor at Birkbeck] coupled with the neo-liberal, free marketeer views of her mentor Keith Joseph, gave birth to the British version of 'the New Right'.

Nowadays, the term 'New Right' also includes those such as myself, who have a less economy-obsessed approach to conservatism, and are 'reluctant collectivists' on some issues- paleoconservatives.

Regards.

Hi Timo,

You are of course right. It was Joseph who was probably the real intellectual guru of the neo-liberal conservatism associated with the Thatcher years. Its always difficult of course to trace the genealogy of ideas, particularly the process of tranmutation from the plane of high theory to that of practical politics and sometimes even back again. I think it was von Mises who referred to the study of the interaction of ideas and action as 'praxiology'. The so called new Right associated with the Thatcher years was of course partly a reaction to the collectivist and state interventionist doctrines which had become entrenched in British political culture (even the Conservative party under that boorish oaf Heath espoused its conventional wisdoms). As with most reactive movements, neo-liberalist Conservatism probably went too far for its own good. 'Paleo-conservatism' is a good metaphor for 'reluctant collectivist' Conservatives of the contemporary era (such as your good self) because it harks back to the one nation Toryism associated with Disraeli and others in the late 19th century, which was not obessed with economics either.

Keep your grubby economists out of this! :P

So, no favourite women philosophers at all? Or did I miss one?

Seriously - why are there so few women philosophers?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Seriously - why are there so few women philosophers?

Perhaps because men are such lovers of sophistry and women tend to be pragmatic ? ;)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Seriously - why are there so few women philosophers?

Perhaps they have an instinctual realisation of the futility of it all, of just sitting there, and watching the cogs in their pretty little minds go round and around.

:P

Perhaps because Philosophy has such as long history - we still admire philosophers born over 2000 years ago, which can't be true of many fields, and although I hesitate to say "philosophy has been done to death", most of the relevant stuff was fairly clear by the beginning-to-mid 20th Century. So in the time-period over which women have begun to make real inroads into male fields, there hasn't been a lot of philosophy needing doing.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Keep your grubby economists out of this! :P

So, no favourite women philosophers at all? Or did I miss one?

Seriously - why are there so few women philosophers?

Phan,

There are at least three possible explanations.

Firstly, the paucity of women in higher education until fairly late-ish in the 20th century. Almost all of the modern philosophers referred to so far were professionally trained in this discipline. In contrast, you don't need specialised university training to write a good novel (a creative form in which women have excelled).

Secondly, it might be argued that women tend to be attracted to the analysis of human relationships (i.e. to people-oriented disciplines) rather than to the analysis of meaning for its own sake (in fact, a lot of modern philosophy seems to be about the meaning of meaning and about linguistic analysis rather than about the big questions relating to the meaning of human existence);

Thirdly, it may be for the same reasons as why there is such a dearth of women composers or chess players - i.e. that at the very highest levels these activities require levels of abstraction and of visio-spatial awareness which seem to be far more common in men than in women.

Lord C,
You are spot-on re the link between paleoconservatism and the 'reluctant collectivist', One Nation brand of Toryism. Yes, Disraeli is a good example of a paleoconservative; a patriot and firm believer in small government, aware that other issues aside from the economy also matter, with a distaste for international idealism and utopian panaceas.

Re the paucity of female philosophers; we could debate this all day [I can't actually as I'm getting behind with research!], and possible variables might include the 'gendered' nature of society, evidence from behavioural genetics re differences in male/female mental processes/capacities etc. Frankly, I could offer no unitary, absolute explanation if pressed. It is doubtless down to a cluster of reasons. What I can do is recommend to fellow posters the work of G.E.M. ['Elizabeth'] Anscombe. She was, in the words of Mary Warnock, 'The undoubted giant among women philosophers'. A volume of Anscombe's work, Human Life, Action and Ethics has just been published by Imprint Academic, edited by Mary Geach and Luke Gormally. Rather 'steep' at £28, but worth it if one is interested in conservative philosophy. I heard of Anscombe through the work of my hero, Roger Scruton and through Salisbury Review. Her work deserves to be more widely known and appreciated. Contact:- imprint-academic.com/standrews

I would say there are many great female philosophers. Many of them write under the banner of 'feminist' rather than 'philosopher' though, for example, SM Okin or C Pateman - whilst I dont agree with their conclusions in many senses, I thoroughly enjoy reading their work as it is thought provoking and extremely well writen.

Also, academic philosophy has, until very recently, been a male preserve. I know I know! You're thinking yada yada yada :rolleyes: So I won't bore you for long, but just to point out that for most people, to be a famous philosopher, you need a teaching post, and to have your work first published, then read and taken seriously by your contemporaries. And if you try and tell me that universities have always been meritocracies in this respect I shall laugh in your face :)

i.e. that at the very highest levels these activities require levels of abstraction and of visio-spatial awareness which seem to be far more common in men than in women.

This, forgive me, is absolute tosh. :D

So in the time-period over which women have begun to make real inroads into male fields, there hasn't been a lot of philosophy needing doing.

I'm of the opinion that since,as you rightly point out, the majority of philosophy has been constructed by men (men who had a very deregatory view of the nature and capabilities of women) - there is still much philosophy 'needing doing'. And indeed, being done.

Kathy, I'm not sure whether feminism falls comes under the banner of philosophy any more than economics does. Admittedly there is some crossover at the level of ethics and linguistics, and also I admit to not having a very clear idea in my head what the definition of philosophy is (I would call it perhaps "ideas about ideas"), but I think feminist theory is usually more sociological.

Also, I'm not aware (though again I admit to not being very widely read) of philosophy that takes a derogatory view of women. Philosophy isn't (or at least shouldn't be) gender specific, and indeed it shouldn't even be species specific. I can't speak for all philosophers, but the Scruton/Kant stuff I am reading refers to "self-aware beings" and is very careful to define this in such a way that it needn't necessarily be restricted to humans, beings from the planet earth, etc.

Feminism can be very much philosophical dansumption.

It attempts to answer questions such as what is the nature of being.

There is feminist philosophy, and non-philosophical feminism. Some academics believe that feminist philosophy is a contradiction in terms, others base their life's work around it!

There is indeed sociological feminism, and feminist sociology. However, some of the boundaries between the disciplines are blurred. For example, this term I took a module called Contemporary Political Philosophy - much of that was to do with feminist theory. (Just got my results - 72 - woohoo!)

I'd be interested to read some of that Kathy, and see how it differs from non-feminist philosophy. Any recommendations?

Originally posted by kathythebean
the majority of philosophy has been constructed by men (men who had a very deregatory view of the nature and capabilities of women)

Bit of a sweeping generalisation - John Stuart Mill for example was a prominent feminist in his time.

DanSumption - many philosophers of old held traditional views of women as irrational, incapable of deep thought, over-emotional, incapable of participating fully in public life or work. Many of them, when using the term individual, or man, really do mean just men.

Whilst obviously, times have changed and attitudes have changed, there is still raging debate as to whether you can simply change the he to a he/she and extend the philosophy of men to a philosophy of man? Or whether philosophical viewpoints constructed with this view of half the population are at all adequate.

This is not to say that all feminists shun philosophical work of before the 1950's! But again, feminists are not a homogenous group - some revise these old texts and use them in their debates and theories - others resent the 'master's tools' and prefer their own building blocks for theory.

Interesting introductory texts might include Jagger and Young, A companion to feminist philosophy, or the cambridge companion to feminist philosophy.

CaptainSwing. I am aware of the work of John Stuart Mill. Hence I said 'majority'.

Hypatia is about the earliest example of a 'classical' philosopher (neoplatonist) I could find. (Ad 370-415 - killed by a mob of Christians).

Does She qualify as a feminist philosopher? Perhaps. It strikes me that a female philosopher who did not exhibit some femininsm (realisation) would not really be worthy of the title.

The woman used to put on her philosopher's cloak and walk through the middle of town and publicly interpret Plato, Aristotle, or the works of any other philosopher to those who wished to hear her.

In addition to her expertise in teaching she rose to the pinnacle of civic virtue. She was both just and chaste and remained always a virgin. She was so beautiful and shapely that one of her students fell in love with her and was unable to control himself and openly showed her a sign of his infatuation.

Uninformed reports had Hypatia curing him of his affliction with the help of music.

The truth is that the story about music is corrupt. Actually, she gathered rags that had been stained during her period and showed them to him as a sign of her unclean descent and said,

"This is what you love, young man, and it isn't beautiful!"

He was so affected by shame and amazement at the ugly sight that he experienced a change of heart and went away a better man.

Kathythebean,
You make a cogent, fair point regarding the 'gendered' nature of academe. Even today, most University academics are male.

I am not sure that any of the writers within the various forms of feminism [from liberal to post-fems] are philosophers. I admire the likes of Sheila Scraton, Bev Skeggs etc, who are currently reconstructing feminism[s] along post-postmodern lines. However, even their work does not have the breadth and scope of what is conventionally regarded as 'philosophy'. Most of it focuses upon social science-related issues. There have been some 'grand' attempts at creating a viable feminist epistemology by the likes of Firestone and Dworkin, but again, there is not the intellectual depth and breadth of vision associated with philosophy, in my view.

Lord C's point about differences between males and females in terms of visio-spatial ability is, with respect, not ' absolute tosh'. There is a vast literature upon the subject [Richard Lynn's work springs to mind], and the findings should not be dismissed just because they are not in line with the egalitarian left/liberal consensus. They are the result of over twenty five years of research in behavioural genetics, in some cases, and the authors [like Lynn] have unassailable reputations as scholars. Their arguments stand as challenges to be proven or disproven, not dismissed out of hand. There is a very real possibility that most men have greater visio-spatial dexterity than most women. Of course, there will be 'overlap', and there are some suggestions that women may [on average] exceed men in terms of language-based intelligence. These genetic variables cannot be offered as unitary explanations, but equally they cannot be dismissed lightly.

Originally posted by timo
There is a very real possibility that most men have greater visio-spatial dexterity than most women. Of course, there will be 'overlap', and there are some suggestions that women may [on average] exceed men in terms of language-based intelligence. These genetic variables cannot be offered as unitary explanations, but equally they cannot be dismissed lightly.

Yes, but to what degree is the actual difference significant when it comes to philosophy, which is as much about inspired intuition and gestalt observations as it its about abstract and logical reasoning - which are only a very small part of it.

Women are not less able to philsophise, by any measure. They were certainly capable of it in the 4th century.

Come on then... I've sat and read through that thread and you've got my attention.

I need something to read to respark the thought processes in my brain before I go back to University. It appears, over the last two months, that I've gone braindead :)

I'm mainly from a legal and sociological background, and have studied the works of Marx, Weber and Durkheim in both fields.

Any suggestions of some philosophic texts to read? It's a subject that has always interested me, but other subjects which were more useful to me on my degree always seemed the better option.

Well,

I don't want to 'take you all on' - as it were. I'm pretty tired today, and it is hot.

Not absolute tosh. I do not refute the statement because I am a member of some left liberal consensus. I refute it because with my tiny female brain with its lack of visio-spatial awareness has just achieved what I consider to be an excellent mark in the subject, and which is head and shoulders above many of my male peers.

I can wrap my head round the subject.

I believe that cultural and historical reasons are much more likely to blame for the dearth of female philosophers.

I would again assert that feminist writers are philosophers even if you assert (somewhat patronisingly) that they lack the 'depth' for it.

Gulp, er, that's me told off then! Sorry Kathy, I didn't mean to sound patronising.

Mmmm...actually that was a little harsh wasn't it!

Sorry love :D

Norton, recommendations for philosophical reads: well, the one I got started on was Descartes Meditations (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140447016/sumptionorg-21). You only need to read the first one, as the rest are pure tosh, but it got my mind working in a more analytical way.

As I've mentioned, Hume's Treatise (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140432442/sumptionorg-21) is the work which has most resonance for me. I found it relatively easy to read, and it shapes a lot of my views to this day. As Phan mentioned, you can get the same information in a slightly more modern form from AJ Ayer, whose Language, Truth and Logic (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486200108/sumptionorg-21) I've also read. I didn't find that it added a lot to what Hume said, but it might be a better place to start.

And the ultimate thinking man's book, which blew my mind wide open and gave me a framework in which to think about all of this stuff, is Douglas's Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140289208/sumptionorg-21). It's not, strictly speaking, philosophy: it is ostensibly a discourse on the possibility of artificial intelligence. But it touches on so many other subjects on the way (music, art, mathematics, ancient greek parables, zen buddhism, illusions, psychology, computer science... to name just a few) that it is a true gem of cross-discipline thought, and should throw some light on anything you go on to study subsequently.

The Problem with Philosophy by Bertie Russell is a really good jumping off point.

Its available as an e-book for free and is a really short and concise read. (A lot of philosophers could learn from this, flabby doesn't begin to describe a lot of their output).

Also, Philsophers Ancient and Modern (OUP) is an A level text, and contains essays on a selection of philosophers by many different writers

Causing Death and Saving Lives by Jonathan Glover (?) is a very good text on moral philosophy.

But if you really want to cut to the quick, then I think Gödel, Escher, Bach an Eternal Golden Braid by Doug Hofstadter will turn you into a philosopher; and then you can stop reading all the flabby waffle by dead guys and start writing your own philosophy.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Keep your grubby economists out of this! :P

So, no favourite women philosophers at all? Or did I miss one?

Seriously - why are there so few women philosophers?



See article here on this (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article299061.ece)

Originally posted by DanSumption
And the ultimate thinking man's book, which blew my mind wide open and gave me a framework in which to think about all of this stuff, is Douglas Hofstadter's GEB

Yes, yes, yes. Me too.

Originally posted by DanSumption
And the ultimate thinking man's book...
Oops, perhaps I didn't choose quite the right turn of phrase there :)

And I'm with Wilson - Philosophy is far too important to be left to philosophers.

Dan. Man as in short for human right?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Dan. Man as in short for human right?
Yes, absolutely. Although some time (about 20 years) ago I heard a proposal to replace the word "human" or "human race" with the less gender-specific "gen". That doesn't seem to have gained much momentum, plus it sounds too much like "Jen" which, as we all know, is a girl's name.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Well,

I don't want to 'take you all on' - as it were. I'm pretty tired today, and it is hot.

Not absolute tosh. I do not refute the statement because I am a member of some left liberal consensus. I refute it because with my tiny female brain with its lack of visio-spatial awareness has just achieved what I consider to be an excellent mark in the subject, and which is head and shoulders above many of my male peers.

I can wrap my head round the subject.

I believe that cultural and historical reasons are much more likely to blame for the dearth of female philosophers.

I would again assert that feminist writers are philosophers even if you assert (somewhat patronisingly) that they lack the 'depth' for it.

Kathy,

I don't think that anyone who had read your posts on this forum would doubt for a moment that you have a very good brain.

Similarly, although I am quite a reasonable chess player, there are many, many women players who could no doubt give me a piece (or pieces) and still knock the stuffing out of me.

But what we are talking about here are accomplishments at the very, very highest levels in these disciplines.

There is of course a high degree of overlap between male and female abilities. All I am saying is that there is not a perfect overlap. Vive la difference?

Thank you all :)

I shall have a shufty around some book shops and see what I can pick up.

Originally posted by LoopyLou
See article here on this (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article299061.ece)

Interesting article. Paglia makes an important point about the collapse of philosophy. Much of what people understand to be philosophy has been commandeered by other disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, politics, economics, contemporary theology and even physics. Very few people now study philosophy as a main subject.

With regard to the 'ten great female philosophers' listed, well there are some interesting names, but to call all of them 'great' is something of an overstatement.

Arendt's inclusion is definitely justified. Many people who did politics or history at university will have cut their teeth on her seminal work 'The Origins of Totalitarianism', but she also wrote a substantial amount of 'pure' philosophy. A key theme of the Origins, i.e. the banality of evil, has a direct relevance to the London bombings. The bombers were as banal as they were evil.

Beauvoir is more famous for being Sartre's intellectual arm candy, drinking buddy, cause sharer and cafe sleeze partner and (in old age) carer than for her own feminist and existentialist writings.

I admire Warnock's writings on Sartre. In one of these, she takes the Sartrean phrase 'man is not what he is and is what he is not' to pieces in order to show that this seemingly pretentious example of Sartrean nonsense is actually quite a profound statement on the inauthenticity of contemporary human existence.

As for Mary Wollstonecraft- a philosopher? Please!

I am pleased to see the inclusion of Anscombe and Rand.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Interesting article. Paglia makes an important point about the collapse of philosophy. Much of what people understand to be philosophy has been commandeered by other disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, politics, economics, contemporary theology and even physics.
I wouldn't exactly call it "commandeering". Part of philosophy's remit is to explore the unexplored, to make sense of knowledge. Once a stable foundation and a clear framework for growth is established within a certain area, it naturally ceases to become part of philosophy and merits its own subject.

In the beginning, everything was philosophy.

Dan,
That is a good and interesting point. However, some of the more recent developments such as Media Studies contain the most insipid, third-rate excuses for philosophy imaginable. These are the Jackdaw subjects- take a bit of sociology, pinch a bit of philosophy, add a dash of first year psychology, throw in some semiotics, stir in some tedious Terry Eagleton style 'insights' from literary criticism and Bob's your Uncle, Fanny's your Aunt, why not 'deconstruct' a soap opera for your Dissertation? Lord C's point about 'commandeering' certainly applies here. Yes, the categories between disciplines may be blurring, but there are some examples of shallow, wishy-washy 'new' disciplines around.

Being a satirical prankster, I once sarcastically referred to a Visiting Professor of Applied Alcopop Studies at the [fictitious, one hopes] Central University of Neepsend Tip Site on a thread. To my horrified amazement, I discovered that Alcopop Studies is actually a subject offered in an American University. Comment would be superfluous.

timo, "you could't make it up" ((c) R. Littlejohn), except you did.

I'm sure the same thing has happened with various programmes invented by TV Go Home (http://www.ntk.net/tvgohome/140599.html).

Currently my favorite 'philosopher' is Krishnamurti.

http://www.kfa.org/

About him from the website:

Krishnamurti claimed allegiance to no caste, nationality or religion and was bound by no tradition. He traveled the world and spoke spontaneously to large audiences until the end of his life at age ninety. He said man has to free himself of all fear, conditioning, authority and dogma through self-knowledge and this will bring about order and psychological mutation. The conflict-ridden violent world cannot be transformed into a life of goodness, love and compassion by any political, social or economic strategies, but only through this mutation in individuals brought about through their own observation without any guru or organized religion.

Good stuff that I highly recommend any of his books including my fav at the moment:

Awakening of Intelligence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060648341/qid=1121378059/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-6545129-4591069)

Enjoy!

Peace,

Locker

In case it isn't obvious already, I freely admit I have absolutely no knowledge of philosophy. The nearest I got was studying the work of Art and Language writers like John Tagg, Terry Atkinson, Victor Burgin, et al. (With regard to the latter, he eventually conceded that much of what he wrote amounted to a conceptual 'style joke', intended to illuminate the almost universal pretentiousness of what passed for art criticism in the late 'seventies/early 'eighties. I wish I had known this at the time as, encouraged by my tutors, I ploughed through his tortuously complex theories - riddled with sub-clause after sub-clause of increasingly impenetrable exposition - searching for non-existent 'meaning').

I have always liked the sound of logical positivism, although I am not sure whether it's very existence is another joke (I picked it up from a Woody Allen short story). Does such a thing exist? If so, what is a 'logical positivist'?

Presently, my favourite philosophers (though I doubt either of them would thank me for it) are SF's excellent DanSumption and Timo. I don't always agree with everything they write, but they both provoke thought (and indeed, thought about thought, which presumably is the essence of philosophy). The former's signature quotation(?), for example – ‘philosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned’ - makes perfect sense to me.

Gotta b George Bush, loved it when he said "I know how hard it is to put food on your family"
:loopy: :clap: :help: :rant: :hihi: :suspect: :gag: :heyhey:

Originally posted by LordSnooty
I have always liked the sound of logical positivism, although I am not sure whether it's very existence is another joke (I picked it up from a Woody Allen short story). Does such a thing exist? If so, what is a 'logical positivist'?
It's not a joke. Briefly summed up, it is the belief that metaphysics are irrelevant, i.e. that only things which are scientifically testable (at least in theory) are worth talking about.

To expand slightly: if something has some physical effect on our universe, it is scientifically testable (at least in theory, although such a test might be too impractical to actually carry out) because we can conceive of a test which will root out the difference between that thing existing or not existing.

If something is not testable, i.e. "God is everwhere", then we can to all intents and purposes ignore this statement because it has no effect on our life, and is thus meaningless.

Actually, I don't think I've explained that very well. Read Ayer, he does a better job, or Russell probably manages even better.

Originally posted by LordSnooty
Presently, my favourite philosophers (though I doubt either of them would thank me for it) are SF's excellent DanSumption and Timo.
:thumbsup: I thank you :thumbsup:

Originally posted by LordSnooty
The former's signature quotation(?), for example – ‘philosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned’ - makes perfect sense to me.
It is a quote from, I think, that prolific source of wisdom and stupidity "anonymous". I stumbled upon it somewhere on the Internet.

Originally posted by Locker
Currently my favorite 'philosopher' is Krishnamurti.

http://www.kfa.org/

Locker

That is good stuff. Looks like Bob Wilson has had a look too -
"What the thinker thinks the prover proves".

We are all thinkers and provers. If we believe something we will find the necessary 'proof' to prove it to ourselves.

Wow, SHarper, your guy gets my vote. Thanks for drawing him to my attention. Feel the need to find out more.

I might have said Sartre as I think he makes valid points about free will in terms of our emotions. It's not always easy to accept we have choices in life and its's easy to go on with our old sometimes negative ways. I just think it's really fascinating to look at things from different perspectives and keep an open mind.

'There is no escape from the anguish of freedom; to flee responsibility is itself a choice.' Unfortunately people live within political systems which make adopting the 'right choice' difficult. Marx may have his place as a philosopher after all.

Originally posted by Bettykins
I might have said Sartre as I think he makes valid points about free will in terms of our emotions. It's not always easy to accept we have choices in life and its's easy to go on with our old sometimes negative ways.
I think even harder to accept is the idea that we don't have free will - some scientific studies over the last 20 years or so have suggested that this is indeed the case. To imagine that everything is caused by the interaction of atoms in what almost amount to "pre-ordained" ways, in as much as they are non-random, requires an almost impossible leap of faith. Mind-boggling.

Do I take it DanSumption that you aren't impressed with the works of behavioural psychologists such as Skinner and Watson? We won't even go down Freud's road.

Lots of interesting comments about the lack of women philosophers. Some of the wisest women I know and with the greatest insight into human behaviour are those of the generation that lived through the 2nd World War. Only recently I believe has a monument been erected to the contribution of women. I say all this to demonstrate that no matter how able women are it appears men set the agenda. Once the war was over then women were returned to the home. Choice was never an issue.

I must say I am totally anti war, but believe we should recognise the contribution ordinary working class people made to society at that time. As ever it is always the people in less advantaged positions in society that suffer. The loss of peoples lives in the 1st World War makes me want to weep. Is that being too emotional though? What would Sartre say? :confused:

Originally posted by DanSumption
It's not a joke. Briefly summed up, it is the belief that metaphysics are irrelevant, i.e. that only things which are scientifically testable (at least in theory) are worth talking about.

To expand slightly: if something has some physical effect on our universe, it is scientifically testable (at least in theory, although such a test might be too impractical to actually carry out) because we can conceive of a test which will root out the difference between that thing existing or not existing.

If something is not testable, i.e. "God is everwhere", then we can to all intents and purposes ignore this statement because it has no effect on our life, and is thus meaningless.

Actually, I don't think I've explained that very well. Read Ayer, he does a better job, or Russell probably manages even better.




Thanks for that, Dan. I'll give Bertie a try, although I am reminded of Tony Hancock, who used to tell friends he was 'reading Bertrand Russell', when in fact he was toiling in vain with merely an introduction to Bertrand Russell. (In a fine example of art imitating life, this surfaced as a joke in 'The Bedsitter', one of the better TV Hancock's Half Hours).

I know it's early days yet, but I think (therefore) I am indeed a Logical Positivist. I'm applying for a new passport at present and feel tempted to enter it as my occupation.

Originally posted by Bettykins
Do I take it DanSumption that you aren't impressed with the works of behavioural psychologists such as Skinner and Watson? We won't even go down Freud's road.
I'm not sure where you got that impression (although, yes, probably safest not to go down Freud's road). Skinner and Watson made very valuable contributions to psychology; they used somewhat brutal and primitive methods, but their results were valuable and informed a whole generation of psychologists.

But it has been almost a century since the formulation of behaviourism. Things have moved on a lot since then. We have far more subtle and refined ways of studying the operation of minds.

I refer you in particular to the work of Benjamin Libet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet), whose studies certainly seem to show that the brain makes its decisions before the mind "decides" that is what it's going to do. In other words, the "mind" may be merely a post-rationalisation of what our anatomy has already decided to do.

On Sartre, I think I already mentioned here that his writing is very persuasive, but it actually says very little. It's enjoyable to read but not very enlightening other than as a tool for prompting introspection.

Sorry DanSumption I was connecting conditioning to your earlier point, are you using free will if you've been conditioned. Do we therefore choose to become conditioned. I agree behavioural psychologists have made a useful contribution. I will have a look at Libet. Thanks for that.

Now I realise why I like Satre, I'm a woman and therefore prone to too much introspection. Have I been conditioned or is it innate? I generally try to engage brain before mouth but don't always suceed, maybe I can blame it on my anatomy!:o