And your favourite Philosopher is...?

[Saksenland]

Who is your favourite Philosopher and why?

[Aragorn]

Oswald Spengler most likely

[DarkZarathustra]

Nietzsche, Heidegger, Descartes, Democritus, Epicurus and all pre-socratic philosophers.

They all are one line which developed throught centuries spirit of sciense and natur-philosophy.

[Saksenland]

Immanuel Kant, Hegel and David Hume

[Johnny Bravo]

F.W. Nietzsche, J.-P. Sartre.

[DarkZarathustra]

F.W. Nietzsche, J.-P. Sartre.
Fine choise :thumbs up

[Ulf]

Nietzsche (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/), Foucault (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/), Feuerbach (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/).

[Treffie]

I studied Philosophy at Uni and studied Gurdjieff - the man's teachings are pretty unorthodox.

[Atlas]

F.W. Nietzsche, J.-P. Sartre.

As he said, both have brought up great ideas and thoughts on our civilization.

[Psychonaut]

I'm finishing off my philosophy degree right now, so I'm still doing lots of reading. My favorites are (in no particular order):

Martin Heidegger
Friedrich Nietzsche
Alain de Benoist
Oswald Spengler and
Alfred North Whitehead

[Ulf]

7M-cmNdiFuI

[Absinthe]

I can't name my 'favorite' as it goes beyond objective opinion to judge philosophy...

But I can say that the most influential of the western ones for me have been Nietzsche, Heidegger, Heraclitus, Plato, Parmenidus, Diogenis, Max Stirner, Jean Paul Sartre, Jean Baudrillard, etc.

But I also draw great inspiration from various Hindu philosophical schools as well as some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism.

[Ulf]

Although not my favorite, I do like Derrida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida).

[YggsVinr]

A few would be Nietzsche, Schiller, Derrida, Emerson, Thoreau, and Evola among many others.

[Loddfafner]

Nietzsche, Foucault, Popper.

[Ulf]

Thoreau needs to be placed in my original post right after Nietzsche. Something in me regards him among greatest of minds.
-----------
Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something.

How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.

Do not lose hold of your dreams or asprirations. For if you do, you may still exist but you have ceased to live.

Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

I would rather sit on a pumpkin, and have it all to myself, than be crowded on a velvet cushion

The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought, and attended to my answer.

However mean your life is, meet it and live it; do not shun it and call it hard names. It is not bad... it looks poorest when you are richest. The fault-finder will find faults, even in paradise. Love your life, poor as it is.

Never look back unless you are planning to go that way

-Thoreau

[Liffrea]

I’m more drawn to classical philosophy, the Stoicism of Epictetus and Seneca provides an excellent set of teachings. Along with the Havamal and the NNV I use these works as my ethical guides.

[Loki]

Richard Dawkins.

[Poltergeist]

Arthur Schopenhauer.

[Murphy]

St Thomas Aquinas and by extension Aristotle.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Cato]

Marcus Aurelius.

[Amarantine]

Aristotel, Platon and Diogen. Makiavely sometimes:P

[Poltergeist]

One of my favourite philosophers is also Diogenes of Sinope (http://www.iep.utm.edu/diogsino/), also known as Diogenes the Cynic, an Athenian who lived in a barrel and mocked the hypocritical social conventions and lies of his fellow citizens.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Waterhouse-Diogenes.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Gerome_-_Diogenes.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Diogenes_looking_for_a_man_-_attributed_to_JHW_Tischbein.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Alexander_visits_Diogenes_at_Corinth_by_W._Matthew s_%281914%29.jpg

[Hrolf Kraki]

Friedrich Nietzsche.

Twilight of the Idols & The Anti-Christ are pure gold.

[anonymaus]

Aristotle, Rand, C. Eric Hitchens and Dennis Miller ;)

Special mentions: George Carlin and Richard Dawkins.

[Amapola]

Hegel

[Hrafn]

Hmmmm.
my favourite ones without some order (although some aren't strictly philosophers rather thinkers and thoughtful writers):
Alain De Benoist,Georges Dumezil, Viktor Schauberger,Konrad Lorenz, Otto Rahn, Friedrich Hielscher,Oswald Spengler, Dr. Tomislav Sunic,Antonio Gramsci,Carl Schmitt, Paul Gottfried,Mathilde Ludendorff,Ram Swarup,Herman Wirth,Julius Evola,Nietzsche, Frithjof Schuon & Rene Guenon (to some extent),Miguel Serrano(only books which don't deal with absurd theories connected with Nazi Occultism),Mircea Eliade, Dr. Pierre Krebs (except his extreme views and love for Russia),Alfred Schuler,C.G. Jung,Hermann Löns, Novalis,Jacque Fresco, Ludwig Fahrenkrog, Dr. Ivo Pilar and Dr.Milan Sufflay (two notable Croatian thinkers and writers) and in the end my greatest inspiration of all: Ernst Jünger.
He is perhaps the greatest influence for me.
That is why i am doing a journal in his honour.

[Gooding]

Marcus Arelius and Thomas Jefferson

[Lutiferre]

Countless. But right now I am reading Xavier Zubiri, Rudolf Eucken, David Bentley Hart.

Of course, G.K. Chesterton (http://chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm), who I must call a philosopher, and the biggest prophet with the biggest relevance for our day and age.

And Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition retains relevance for us even today, and in the work of Thomists like Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Emerich Coreth. I am also fascinated by Teilhard de Chardin and his inspiring works.

I am also interested in all the Church Fathers and have slight sympathies towards some aspects of neoplatonism and stoicism.

[Sally]

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2056wxi.jpg

[Cato]

I would've preferred to have listed a northern European sage, but the sages in that part of the world were more or less derivatives of southern Europe's thoughtforms and belief systems. I might say Saxo, but he was a historian and not a philosopher. It's somewhat saddening that no truly native (i.e. heathen) scholar from the age of yore has made himself known to the modern world, a Germanic equivalent to Plato or Aristotle. The interesting point is, would such a thinker have been a man or a woman, such as the Veleda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleda

[Lutiferre]

I would've preferred to have listed a northern European sage, but the sages in that part of the world were more or less derivatives of southern Europe's thoughtforms and belief systems. I might say Saxo, but he was a historian and not a philosopher. It's somewhat saddening that no truly native (i.e. heathen) scholar from the age of yore has made himself known to the modern world, a Germanic equivalent to Plato or Aristotle. The interesting point is, would such a thinker have been a man or a woman, such as the Veleda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleda
Though, do you think Plato and Aristotle are just "cultural expressions", then, rather than lovers of perennial wisdom which is relevant for everyone?

I don't think there is really any equivalent at all to Plato or Aristotle, or at least not to the fully mature platonism and aristotelianism. Only remote similitudes.

[Cato]

Though, do you think Plato and Aristotle are just "cultural expressions", then, rather than lovers of perennial wisdom which is relevant for everyone?

I don't think there is really any equivalent at all to Plato or Aristotle, or at least not to the fully mature platonism and aristotelianism. Only remote similitudes.

I can see two particular expressions, one that Plato and Aristotle speak to a specific culture, that of ancient Greece. Yet, they are also followers and lovers of a sort of universal wisdom, true philosophers. Such a dichotomy doesn't surprise me, however. Greece was always closer to the near east and Egypt, and thus the urbane and codified wisdom of the earlier cultures of these parts of the world. Northern Europe's indigenous wisdom existed within the framework of an oral tradition and, for the most part, was written down well after the northern European peoples came under the more powerful cultural sway of southern Europe.

There's no northern European equivalent to Plato or Aristotle that we know of, yet the cosmological worldviews of, say, the ancient Germanic and Greco-Roman peoples were also very different in a number of ways. So, would such a figure as Plato or Aristotle arise in northern Europe? :confused:

[Liffrea]

Similarities between the Druidic beliefs and Greek philosophical beliefs (particularly Pythagorean) have been pointed out. Whether this was due to acculturation or comparative development is open to debate. Some believe that Plato himself was influenced by Indian tradition transmitted from the Near East.

The Greek development of reasoned argument was largely unique to them, we find no comparable tradition in other cultures, indeed in my opinion it is this tradition that was responsible for the dramatic rise in European fortunes from the later Middle Ages via the scholastic tradition and the development in legal systems in Europe. Islam never achieved separation between the Quran and state, never fully appreciated the Aristotelian tradition, whilst China never really developed what we would call science. Greece was unique and the product of a number of circumstances, the chances of this tradition arising in northern Europe independently are remote, yet the finest philosophic output has largely been northern European in the last five hundred years.

[Cato]

Northern European spirituality, prior to the Christian period, was largely intuitive and individualistic (holistic) rather than speculative and formal. I've come to this conclusion simply because of the differences that I've come to see in the northern European mindset, which tends to value the individual rather than the collective. There were no great city-states in the north, whereas the south was dominated by such as Athens, Sparta, and the pemultimate city-state, Rome.

I feel that the lack of large settlements like city-states played a strong role in the development of northern European beliefs. In many ways, they were closer to nature. This is reflected in the apparently fatalistic outlook of many of the northern European figures from legend- yet it's a fatalism tinged with cheer and humor. Death may've lurked at the door of the hall, but one undercurrents is that death was a part of the natural order of things. The folk of northern Europe never had the fear of death that seems to have plagued the citizens of the sunny Mediterranean lands. Rebirth played a part within their cosmology, and there seems to have been no Germanic salvation cults, unless you count the Vanic deities as being salvific in nature (which I don't). However, despite a seeming fatalism, the Germanics also had a strong belief in the goodness of the world and the goodness of humans to get things done themselves (re: no external supernatural meddlers like Jehovah). It's a very strongly independent way of living that they had.

The informality of northern European beliefs mirrored the informality of the people who followed these beliefs.

[Lutiferre]

Northern European spirituality, prior to the Christian period, was largely intuitive and individualistic (holistic) rather than speculative and formal.
Spirituality was still and is still intuitive for most Christians. Speculativeness and formality is mostly a thing of theologians and priests, and even many of them are themselves intuitive in their intellectuality.

Rebirth played a part within their cosmology, and there seems to have been no Germanic salvation cults, unless you count the Vanic deities as being salvific in nature (which I don't).
I think Germanic beliefs did involve "salvation", in that your deeds in this life affected your honour and place in the afterlife.


However, despite a seeming fatalism, the Germanics also had a strong belief in the goodness of the world
Christians also believe in the goodness of the world, but do not deny the evil in it either.


and the goodness of humans to get things done themselves (re: no external supernatural meddlers like Jehovah).
No "external supernatural meddlers"? Germanics certainly have deities. Isn't that just a bad straw man of a deity? I mean, since no one actually sees the deity that way, but rather sees it as a powerful being, wholly other than us, but still something we have an intimate connection with, and they have an intimate power over us. They are not just meddlers, but something fundamental to nature and existence.

[Liffrea]

For Germanic people’s there was no real sense of being saved, whilst one’s actions and words were more a reflection on this life than the afterlife, which arguably had more bearing for Germanic heathens. This isn’t to claim that Germanic heathens had no concept of the afterlife (far from it) what we do know tends towards a quite complex understanding and we also have some evidence in a belief in transmigration from the surviving Icelandic texts.

That Germanic religion has been described as more practical and less mystical isn’t entirely unfair, given the conditions of northern Europe it was a struggle just to survive from one year to the next back in the days before central heating, thermal underwear and intensive agriculture, naturally this bred a harder type of man more interested in physical reality than metaphysical speculation, perhaps we see this still, especially in Anglo-Saxon philosophy, which is usually more focused on politics and society than metaphysics.

Fatalistic? As a lover of Old English literature I can attest to the fact that you will never encounter a more gloomy, morose and morbid body of literature, from The Ruin to The Wanderer even to heroic works such as the Maldon text Old English literature often focuses on the nature of death and loss, again given the world of northern Europe this is, perhaps, not surprising. Some have claimed that Celtic literature does not display that level of foreboding, perhaps this is a uniquely Germanic characteristic, to much woodland and snow, no wonder Scandinavian metal bands are so cheerful! When the Christian missionaries arrived in the northlands they quickly realised that the heroic principle meant a great deal, Jesus as a warrior was going to get a lot further, check out the hauntingly beautiful poem The Dream of the Rood.

However it would be wrong to claim that there was no mystical speculation, indeed the Eddas themselves, like all mythology, are a wealth of symbolism and teachings, whether that ever developed to the level of a mystery cult of initiated practitioners is hard to say, being pre-literate and cults usually being secret it is not surprising if any evidence there of didn’t survive.

[Lutiferre]

For Germanic people’s there was no real sense of being saved, whilst one’s actions and words were more a reflection on this life than the afterlife, which arguably had more bearing for Germanic heathens. This isn’t to claim that Germanic heathens had no concept of the afterlife (far from it) what we do know tends towards a quite complex understanding and we also have some evidence in a belief in transmigration from the surviving Icelandic texts.

That Germanic religion has been described as more practical and less mystical isn’t entirely unfair, given the conditions of northern Europe it was a struggle just to survive from one year to the next back in the days before central heating, thermal underwear and intensive agriculture, naturally this bred a harder type of man more interested in physical reality than metaphysical speculation, perhaps we see this still, especially in Anglo-Saxon philosophy, which is usually more focused on politics and society than metaphysics.

Fatalistic? As a lover of Old English literature I can attest to the fact that you will never encounter a more gloomy, morose and morbid body of literature, from The Ruin to The Wanderer even to heroic works such as the Maldon text Old English literature often focuses on the nature of death and loss, again given the world of northern Europe this is, perhaps, not surprising. Some have claimed that Celtic literature does not display that level of foreboding, perhaps this is a uniquely Germanic characteristic, to much woodland and snow, no wonder Scandinavian metal bands are so cheerful! When the Christian missionaries arrived in the northlands they quickly realised that the heroic principle meant a great deal, Jesus as a warrior was going to get a lot further, check out the hauntingly beautiful poem The Dream of the Rood.

However it would be wrong to claim that there was no mystical speculation, indeed the Eddas themselves, like all mythology, are a wealth of symbolism and teachings, whether that ever developed to the level of a mystery cult of initiated practitioners is hard to say, being pre-literate and cults usually being secret it is not surprising if any evidence there of didn’t survive.
Indeed. I don't think the preoccupation with death, tragedy, and evil (fundamentally) and what happens to us when we die was any less in the Germanics than so many other peoples.

[Northern_Paladin]

Mine are as follows. Charles Darwin, Arthur Schopenhauer, Fredrick Wilhelm Nietzsche, Soren Kirkegaard, Nicollo Machiavelli, and Adolf Hitler. I consider Mein Kampf Philosophy even though it is kind of cut and dry even crude at times.

I would consider Darwin,Hitler and Machiavelli to have influenced me the most.

[Eldritch]

I don't really read much philosophy, but Aristotle's and Marcus Aurelius's writings aren't too shabby.

On the other end of the spectrum, I absolutely loathe the crap produced by con artists like Derrida, Foucault (spelling the name in the form "Fuck-All" should be mandatory), Baudrillard, etc.

[Loddfafner]

I absolutely loathe the crap produced by con artists like Derrida, Foucault (spelling the name in the form "Fuck-All" should be mandatory), Baudrillard, etc.

I once started a piece titled, "Fuck off, Foucault" but then realized my beef was not so much with his work which I later came to appreciate as with his followers who are so self-righteously incoherent. I never found any redeeming features in the work of the rest of that bunch: Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, etc. Baudrillard, like my kitchen clock that is right twice a day, is quotably thought provoking twice a book.

[Wotan88]

I am interested in views of many philosophers but if I had to choose one, I'd definitely pick F. Nietzsche. Maybe I don't agree with every single point he made (f.e. his opinion on Islam) but I have my own brain after all to decide, what is good and what's bad. Nietzsche's views are very intersting and often correlate with my own opinions.

Another philosopher or ideologist I admire is Polish NS ideologist from pre-WW2 period - Jan Stachniuk. His works contain the most complex vision of national socialism ever to be proposed.

[Liffrea]

Most certainly Nietzsche at present, I’m having a world of fun trying to reconcile some of his theories with Neo-Platonism, given what he says about Platonism in Beyond Good and Evil I’m probably on a losing battle…….add to that he rejects metaphysics I might as well throw in the towel…..

Still that’s the fun of philosophy.

[Absinthe]

Nietzsche über alles - count me in

[Don]

Diogenes of Sinope.

Shameless.

[Electronic God-Man]

Myself. :coffee:

Hey, I'll have a philosophy degree soon enough...

[Psychonaut]

Myself. :coffee:

Hey, I'll have a philosophy degree soon enough...

:D

What direction do you lean towards now? Continental? Analytic? Process?

[Cato]

Myself. :coffee:

Hey, I'll have a philosophy degree soon enough...

Who says you need a degree to practice philosophy? :confused:

[Electronic God-Man]

:D

What direction do you lean towards now? Continental? Analytic? Process?

Pff. Undergrad philosophy degrees are useless. They just teach you little tiny bits of everything. You come out knowing next to nothing. I have no focus in the field.


Who says you need a degree to practice philosophy? :confused:

I didn't. There are certainly people without any formal schooling in philosophy who know far more than I do. I haven't read any philosophy in my free time since high school, when I first decided to major in it. I should have listened to this person I know who has a doctorate in it and had also gotten his bachelor's degree in it. He said it was a waste of time to get an undergrad philosophy degree. I agree with him now.

I thank the gods I am a double major. At least I learned some things from my History major.

[Cato]

I follow the advice of Zeno et al. of the Stoic school and believe that philosophy, in its purest form, is best practiced by the everyman. Dry academia doesn't really lead one to a life of loving wisdom.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Oghren
I follow the advice of Zeno et al. of the Stoic school and believe that philosophy, in its purest form, is best practiced by the everyman. Dry academia doesn't really lead one to a life of loving wisdom.

Personally I think as long as you have the urge to keep asking the question why you’re a philosopher.

Of course, though, academic qualifications have their place. I love physics but I realise I’m not intelligent enough to study the subject in an academic setting, gain qualifications and, thus, be let lose designing nuclear fission reactions or atom smashers……..which is undoubtedly a benefit to humanity as I’m not likely to create a black hole singularity in my garden shed (not on purpose anyway, I did once develop a surface to air missile…..not bad for saying it was supposed to be a mere self watering bean bed)……such is the need for professionalism.

I’m not sure what a professional philosopher does……presumably one is allowed to wear a robe of some sort and has to scratch their head and hmmm at least 73 times a day…….

As a qualified archaeologist I am remiss in my duty if I do not manage to create an entire civilisation from a found Budweiser bottle top, a tube of used super glue and a half brick…..

[Svanhild]

Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer.

[Arrow Cross]

That would be Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo.

[Lars]

Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer.

Not many females like Arthur Schopenhauer as he didn't write to pleasent of them. But I agree, Schopenhauer #1.

[Svanhild]

Not many females like Arthur Schopenhauer as he didn't write to pleasent of them. But I agree, Schopenhauer #1.

I can separate the wheat from the chaff. :wink Some ideas of Schopenhauer are dull but that doesn't reduce the worth of his other reasoning.

[Cato]

Philosophy is a way of life and is meant to be lived rather than studied like a dry, academic subject. This is why I prefer practical philosophy rather than the philosophy of theory and logic. Stoicism, for example, is about application in everyday life to rid the mind of burdens and false impressions and judgments. Confucianism is much the same, but also places emphasis on filial piety and societal harmony. Blahblahblah and the modern philosophies are just a lot of airy speculation to me.

[Breedingvariety]

1. Arthur Schopenhauer
2. Friedrich Nietzsche
3. Baruch Spinoza

[Bard]

1. Arthur Schopenhauer
2. Friedrich Nietzsche
Not spinoza sorry :P
Schopenhauer was a crazy bastard btw.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Verwoerd: Politician/Philosopher

George Bataille

[Pallantides]

Morten Harket *jk*

[Piparskeggr]

Can't think of one philosopher whose entirety appeals to me; different bits and pieces from lots of thinkers...that's what works to help mold my worldview.

I don't even agree with my wife 100% :D

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Ullarsskald
Can't think of one philosopher whose entirety appeals to me; different bits and pieces from lots of thinkers...that's what works to help mold my worldview.

I’m gravitating more towards philosophical viewpoints sympathetic to the outlook displayed in European IE literature such as Homer, and the Old English/Norse heroic literature. I find much in Heraclitus and Nietzsche that appeals to me, the empowerment of man, deification of the human spirit, optimism and lust for life tempered by fatalism and an appreciation of life as it is, life affirmation.

[Piparskeggr]

I’m gravitating more towards philosophical viewpoints sympathetic to the outlook displayed in European IE literature such as Homer, and the Old English/Norse heroic literature. I find much in Heraclitus and Nietzsche that appeals to me, the empowerment of man, deification of the human spirit, optimism and lust for life tempered by fatalism and an appreciation of life as it is, life affirmation.

If I were to look at where the thoughts I value originate...

I too look at the Heroic in our elder literature (Hellenic, Celtic and Germanic) and the Pragmatic displayed therein. I think this can be seen in the poetry I like best; Kipling, Longfellow, Service and similar scribblers.

Also, some Stoic and classical Epicurean thought with a bit of Roman Numenism, somewhat like what is seen in "To Myself," the musings of Marcus Aurelius.

Mostly though, I'd say I try to live within a mindset of Situational Awareness, which is open to the Possibility and Probability of a connection with the Ineffable though Thought and Belief.

[The Khagan]

Albert Camus or Martin Heidegger would have to be my two favorites. Foucalt is also nice.

I suppose I'll have to nod to Nietzsche as well. His writings resonate almost as much with me as Camus' does.

[Tursas]

I guess Descartes is my current favourite, mainly because of his work within epistemology.

When it comes to today's philosophers, Slavoj Žižek is a quite interesting person as long as you don't take him too seriously ;)

[lei.talk]

some writers are enjoyable
for the rhetorical heights they do soar,

others for the clockwork-like logical precision
with which they march toward ludicrous conclusions
due to the fact-paucity of their premises,

still others for the extent of the psycho-pathology revealed,

but, only one could answer my childishly simple demand - "prove it!"
by simply pointing to an element in reality
and in less than a hand-full of obvious logical steps - do so.



https://i.imgur.com/6yiBIbm.gif

https://i.imgur.com/6nlJgNB.gif

https://i.imgur.com/ZmZY8zb.gif

https://i.imgur.com/qzssiBv.gif

https://i.imgur.com/avIagB4.gif

https://i.imgur.com/EfSo13d.gif



https://i.imgur.com/w6iNoDR.gif

https://i.imgur.com/rIkL5He.gif

https://i.imgur.com/ogMJOie.gif

https://i.imgur.com/CXCmqYO.gif

https://i.imgur.com/ZkMTTXP.gif



https://i.imgur.com/fYix3tW.gif

https://i.imgur.com/gDAkZmt.gif

https://i.imgur.com/2dvnANz.gif

https://i.imgur.com/sEXZS7R.gif

https://i.imgur.com/WXVDhKL.gif



https://i.imgur.com/rK5voEv.gif

https://i.imgur.com/I3KmJTU.gif

https://i.imgur.com/6zgiGSd.gif

https://i.imgur.com/XK9KjTZ.gif

https://i.imgur.com/Fu3n2A7.gif



https://i.imgur.com/kN8Fzuu.gif

https://i.imgur.com/BEve5Zj.gif

https://i.imgur.com/emDF2Di.gif

https://i.imgur.com/UPUDVLM.gif

https://i.imgur.com/ltK8Wlc.gif

https://i.imgur.com/Qm18OmS.gif

https://i.imgur.com/pHIgdSE.gif

https://i.imgur.com/aqH9EUz.gif

https://i.imgur.com/eE36SJn.gif

https://i.imgur.com/CaWX4fe.gif



https://i.imgur.com/Lpviv56.gif

https://i.imgur.com/bbKSjN2.gif

https://i.imgur.com/Tmida5m.gif

https://i.imgur.com/BuYkZ7e.gif

https://i.imgur.com/BINoKY3.gif

https://i.imgur.com/o8fIJgd.gif

https://i.imgur.com/9XMuV2H.gif

https://i.imgur.com/l6UlmKY.gif



https://i.imgur.com/V8WdrHK.gif

https://i.imgur.com/UyPCtRP.gif

https://i.imgur.com/O6qZuGF.gif

https://i.imgur.com/1Xmzsma.gif

https://i.imgur.com/emOXpbj.gif


the girl-child and i (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=903684#post903684) very much enjoy playing
an endless game with the flash-cards
from this word-list (http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.html)
because reading each card leads us to an other and the next,
untill a regularly scheduled activity:
stewarding our plants and animals, exercising, eating, sleeping...

soon we will be stacking the cards for this schema (http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Chart.html)
(preferred for its ease of memorisation)

as a foundation for the study of this box of flash-cards (http://importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html)
which will stretch the girl-child's mind in to deeper considerations.

these evils (http://importanceofphilosophy.com/MisbegottenNotionsMain.html) will not be presented to the girl-child
untill she is much older - there are many more positives for her to enjoy.

penultimately, the girl-child and i will play this "game" (https://estore.aynrand.org/p/6/the-philosophy-of-objectivism-mp3-download)
of flash-cards from a lecture series i attended over thirty years ago
and presented on audio-tape (as one of walter huebscher's many leasees)
at the ucsd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_San_Diego)/mensa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International) philosophy forum for two decades.

this game required nearly a year of my son's time to memorise.

my son and i are in discussion
regarding whether the girl-child's mind
should be exposed to a series of books he read in his late teens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World#The_works):

the questions being should her mind be polluted
with what is mostly non-sense
or will the erudition be applicable?

if so, should she read the volumes in which he has marked
all of the errors of fact/logic,
errors based on or compounded by ignorance,
intentional deception and meaningless rhetoric

or present the girl-child with fresh copies?



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Sign_Ayn_Rand.png/120px-Sign_Ayn_Rand.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Wikipedia_World_Developer_Champion.png/70px-Wikipedia_World_Developer_Champion.png (http://www.youtube.com/user/GaltSpeaking#p/u/12/00xStn_jXKo)

[Cato]

If you can call him a philosopher, Zoroaster is a good one to study.

[Foxy]

Who is your favourite Philosopher and why?

Schopenauer and Nietzsche.

[Foxy]

Not many females like Arthur Schopenhauer as he didn't write to pleasent of them. But I agree, Schopenhauer #1.

I agree with Schopenauer also about that. Many women are stupid or act like stupid. Just watch ... mmm... Pamela Anderson or, even worse, Victoria Silvstedt... Why should a philosopher defend them?

[Groenewolf]

My favorite one, from those still living I would say Benoist and Scruton. From the 20th century, late 19th century : Spengler and Heidiger, Nietizsche to a lesser extent. I also have developed an interest in the philosophies of Emperor Julian "the Apostate" and the philosophers around him.

[Psychonaut]

My favorite one, from those still living I would say Benoist and Scruton.

Scruton is such a wonderful contemporary philosopher in so many ways. His Modern Philosophy was one of my earliest texts on the subject. His ontology is not at all to my liking, but he's undoubtedly a breath of conservative air in an otherwise liberal field. :thumb001:

[Invictus_88]

Scruton is such a wonderful contemporary philosopher in so many ways. His Modern Philosophy was one of my earliest texts on the subject. His ontology is not at all to my liking, but he's undoubtedly a breath of conservative air in an otherwise liberal field. :thumb001:

Have you read much of his work on aesthetics? A lot of it is excellent good sense and quite convincing, even if some of what he says about film and photography is a bit questionable.

[Groenewolf]

However he does dare to set standards for the arts. Something that only a few thinkers seem to have to courage for these days. Or else you can call a toilet seat upside down art, or starving a dog and then making pictures of it.

[Psychonaut]

Have you read much of his work on aesthetics? A lot of it is excellent good sense and quite convincing, even if some of what he says about film and photography is a bit questionable.

I've not read it first hand, only about it. I got a sense that I would like much of it and need to do so when other philosophical projects are not pressing. :thumb001:

[Invictus_88]

I've not read it first hand, only about it. I got a sense that I would like much of it and need to do so when other philosophical projects are not pressing. :thumb001:

Are you reading at leisure, or do you have an academic course that you're on?

[Psychonaut]

Are you reading at leisure, or do you have an academic course that you're on?

Both/and :)

[Moonbird]

That would be Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.

[lei.talk]

with the advices of the nordish portal (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS281US281&q=%22the+nordish+portal%22) logo (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/image.php?groupid=56&dateline=1254230673) creator (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/member.php?u=315)
and the facilities of alan schaaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imgur) -

here is my son's wall-poster
of the flash-cards from this post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=220556#post220556):



http://i.imgur.com/lGtFp.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))



http://i41.tinypic.com/eapa46.jpg (http://imgur.com/lGtFp?tags)
*

[Aemma]

David Abram (born June 24, 1957) is an American philosopher, cultural ecologist, and performance artist, best known for his work bridging the philosophical tradition of phenomenology with environmental and ecological issues. He is the author of Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology, published in 2010[1] and of The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World,[2] for which he received, among other awards, the international Lannan Literary Award for Nonfiction. Abram is founder and creative director of the Alliance for Wild Ethics (AWE); his essays on the cultural causes and consequences of ecological disarray have appeared often in such journals as Orion, Environmental Ethics, Parabola, Tikkun, and The Ecologist, as well as in numerous anthologies.

More here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Abram)


His website, The Alliance for Wild Ethics:

http://www.wildethics.org/home.html

*And I most definitely WOULD grow potatoes with this guy!*

[Cato]

Heraclitus at the moment.

[Psychonaut]

Heraclitus at the moment.

My current signature agrees heartily with your choice. ;)

[Cato]

My current signature agrees heartily with your choice. ;)

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-7/zeus-lightning.jpg

[Belenus]

I'm also looking into Heraclitus. Other than him, some all-time favourites are Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Julius Evola (a major favourite until recently - now I'm starting to question some of his claims), and Friedrich Nietzsche. I don't accept all of the teachings of any of the above, but there are aspects of each that really appeal to my senses.

Other than these philosophers, I am inspired in my view on life by Homer and other heroic mythologies of Europe, especially those of the Celts. The Roman concept of 'numen' also figures prominently in my intuitive outlook, but I sensed it and believed in it long before I ever heard of 'numen' in the Roman context.

A pair of philosophers who I don't agree with much at all but find very intriguing are Han Fei Tzu and Shang Yang, both Chinese Legalists. Their philosophy was embraced by Shihuangdi, the first emperor of China, who unified the warring states after a long epoch of uninterrupted war. Legalism was vehemently opposed to, well, a lot of things... it's definitely worth the time it takes to read up on it.

[Svipdag]

Immanuel Kant. Would that modern physicists would read and understand Kant's ideas on ontology and epistemology. It might force them to consider whether their beloved mathematical models really make sense and really have any physical significance.

It was Kant's view that space and time are nothing but modes of cognition .
If this is true, can a mode of cognition spontaneously turn into matter as some modern physicists claim that space can ?

"A Critique of Pure Reason" would be a breeze of fresh air to blow away the cobwebs in the ivory towers of the cosmologists and modsrn physicists. Perhaps they might even concern themselves with the question of whether their speculations make sense.

[Psychonaut]

I'm also looking into Heraclitus.

I you end up sympathizing with Heraclitus' stance on the ontological primacy of flux (Πάντα ῥεῖ), then I'd heartily suggest picking up Nicholas Rescher's overview of Process Philosophy (http://www.amazon.com/Process-Metaphysics-Introduction-Philosophy-Suny/dp/0791428184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301840602&sr=8-1)—the modern continuation of Heraclitus' thought.


The Roman concept of 'numen' also figures prominently in my intuitive outlook

Have you read Otto (http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Holy-R-Otto/dp/0195002105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301840673&sr=8-1) yet?

[Belenus]

I you end up sympathizing with Heraclitus' stance on the ontological primacy of flux (Πάντα ῥεῖ), then I'd heartily suggest picking up Nicholas Rescher's overview of Process Philosophy (http://www.amazon.com/Process-Metaphysics-Introduction-Philosophy-Suny/dp/0791428184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301840602&sr=8-1)—the modern continuation of Heraclitus' thought.



Have you read Otto (http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Holy-R-Otto/dp/0195002105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301840673&sr=8-1) yet?

Thanks for the Rescher recommendation. It looks interesting and I may well follow up Fragments with that.

I haven't read Otto yet, but The Idea of the Holy is somewhere in my to-read list. How does Otto's thinking specifically relate to numen? My chief sources for what I know about numen are Evola's essay The Sacred in the Roman Tradition (http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id69.html) and Georges Dumézil's Archaic Roman Religion (http://www.amazon.com/Archaic-Roman-Religion-Georges-Dum%C3%A9zil/dp/0801854806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301847337&sr=8-1).

Some of Mircea Eliade's ideas in The Sacred and the Profane (http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301847729&sr=1-1) also relate to my understanding of what numen is. The Romans tended to focus on the numinosity of spaces, but Eliade shows how Time is just as pregnant with divine forces. For instance:


"For religious man time too, like space, is neither homogeneous nor continuous. On the one hand there are the intervals of a sacred time, the time of festivals (by far the greater part of which are periodical); on the other there is profane time, ordinary temporal duration, in which acts without religious meaning have their setting. Between these two kinds of time there is, of course, solution of continuity; but by means of rites religious man can pass without danger from ordinary temporal duration to sacred time.

One essential difference between these two qualities of time strikes us immediately: by its very nature sacred time is reversible in the sense that, properly speaking, it is a primordial mythical time made present."
- Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, trans. Willard R. Trask, p.68

I would only add to this that, in addition to and quite apart from ceremonial ritual, it is possible to tap into eternal sacred time through intense faith, meditation, and magical workings.

The Celts especially had a strong sensitivity to the numinosity of Time. Their entire view of the cosmos was based on a divine wheeling motion/duration, through which the earth is constantly reborn. Their entire religion was seasonal.

[Psychonaut]

How does Otto's thinking specifically relate to numen? My chief sources for what I know about numen are Evola's essay The Sacred in the Roman Tradition (http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id69.html) and Georges Dumézil's Archaic Roman Religion (http://www.amazon.com/Archaic-Roman-Religion-Georges-Dum%C3%A9zil/dp/0801854806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301847337&sr=8-1).

Some of Mircea Eliade's ideas in The Sacred and the Profane (http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301847729&sr=1-1) also relate to my understanding of what numen is.

If you've read Eliade, you've probably already got a good idea of where Otto is coming from since Eliade borrows Otto's ideas quite liberally. The chief point is of the otherness of the religious experience. So, whatever it is that is experienced as holy—be it a rock, tree or sunset—is experienced as a unique center of subjectivity, not as an inert object. The numen radiates a sense of self in the same way that the prehending subject (you) does.

[Raskolnikov]

Dr. Pangloss

[Piparskeggr]

Elbert Hubbard: "Never strive to keep up with the Jonses; always drag them down to your level."

:P

[Cato]

At the moment, Seneca and Epictetus, who're teaching me to accept circumstance as they happen.

[GeistFaust]

My favorite philosophers are Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, Friedrich Von Schelling, and Martin Heidegger.

[Cato]

At the moment, Philo of Alexandria.

[Lucretius]

Nietzsche, Heidegger, Descartes, Democritus, Epicurus and all pre-socratic philosophers.

They all are one line which developed throught centuries spirit of sciense and natur-philosophy.

I can't find any links between Heidegger and Epicurus or Democritus and Descartes, they are irreconcilable.

[Magister Eckhart]

Heraclitus (535-475BC)

The concept of God as stasis, also the utter unintelligibility of the Divine.
Plato (427-347BC)

Natural hierarchy, the philosopher king, the allegory of the cave, the theory of the Forms
Plotinus (AD 204-270)

God expressed as "The One", the unity of God, explicit anti-materialism
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th century AD)

via negativa
Saint Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430)

Ineffability of God, Two Kingdoms, Evil as a negative entity (i.e. non-entity), concupiscence as source of evil, foolishness/ignorance as original Sin
Saint Anselm of Canturbury (AD 1033-1109)

Ontological Proof of God's existence
Saint Thomas Aquinas (AD 1227-1274)

King as subject to God and Law, defined social hierarchy, definition of heresy as category
Meister Eckhart von Hochheim (AD 1260-1327)

via negativa, ineffability of God, self-alienation as only means to God, philosophy of prayer as reflection on God rather than petition
Wang Yangming (AD 1472-1529)

Absolute unity of knowledge and action
Martin Luther (AD 1483-1546)

Depravity of man, sola fide in opposition to good works (i.e. intent rather than consequence)
Thomas Hobbes (AD 1588-1679)

State of Nature, natural depravity of man
Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre (AD 1753-1821)

Counter-enlightenment, counter-revolution, conservatism
Wilhelm Richard Wagner (AD 1813-1883)

Gesamtkunstwerk theory
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (AD 1844-1900)

Ethical breakdown of society, anti-enlightenment, overcoming of "humanity", Will to Power
Ferdinand Tönnies (AD 1855-1936)

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft principles
Ferdinand de Saussure (AD 1857-1913)

Semiotics, inescapability of language, arbitrary nature of language, language as reality
Oswald Arnold Gottfried Spengler (AD 1880-1936)

Cyclical history, civilizational decline, anti-Darwinian conception of history, Conservative Revolution, Catholicism as Western Christianity
Carl Schmitt (AD 1888-1985)

Concept of sovereign and power of exception, Conservative Revolution
Edgar Julius Jung (AD 1894-1934)

Modernity as rule of the mediocre, Spiritual Aristocracy, Conservative Revolution


I think that's everybody. A simpler list would be:

The three great Classical Philosophers: Heraclitus, Plato, Augustine
The three great Early Faustian Philosophers: Eckhart, Aquinas, Anselm
The three great Late Faustian Philosophers: Nietzsche, Spengler, de Maistre

[Lucretius]

Meister your list is very interesting,I mean it,but I have some doubts about the faustianism of tomism and de Maistre.

We can call it a list philosophers who took the spiritual/idealistic way (except for Hobbes,Nietzsche and some others) , there are many others,such as Democritus,who,in his period of life was very much considered,who took the atomic way and built their own ethics/metaphisics.

[Psychonaut]

Plotinus (AD 204-270)

God expressed as "The One", the unity of God, explicit anti-materialism

I don't think that's really an accurate characterization of his thought. While there is some differentiation on the Plotinian and Iamblichean schools of Neoplatonism on whether or not the psyche completely descends into the physical, but at no point is the latter really treated in a negative manner (as it is in the other Western school of emanationism: Gnosticism). Indeed, rather than the negative conception of matter as being fallen from the One, the Neoplatonists treated the final emanation—the particular—as the authentic actualization of the universal. This was not only natural, but since the telos which led to matter's emanation came directly from the One—which is synonymous with the Good—the physical emanation is itself good.

[Comte Arnau]

Plato, Confucius, Ibn Sena, Llull, Vives, Hegel, Camus.

EDIT: and Justin Biever.

[Svipdag]

Immanuel Kant No one else has analyzed and evaluated human reason as objectively and lucidly as Kant. No one else has explained the basis, nature, and scope of the moral law as consistently as Kant. By so doing, he has laid the foundation for epistemology, and established that it is not independent of moral philosophy.

[Blossom]

Maybe a too classic....maybe Hume. Not sure already, I'm trying to learn more about philosophy than I did in past...but I do somehow agree about the empeiria he's talking about.

[Breedingvariety]

Some of my favorite Friedrich Nietzsche quotes:


No one lies so boldly as the man who is indignant. ( :D )

We have art in order not to die of the truth.

We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.

Whom do you call bad?— Those who always want to put to shame.
What do you consider the most humane? - To spare someone shame.
What is the seal of liberation? - To no longer be ashamed in front of oneself.

Blessed are the forgetful: for they get the better even of their blunders.

Shared joys make a friend, not shared sufferings.

Nothing has been purchased more dearly than the little bit of reason and sense of freedom which now constitutes our pride.

Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood.

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

[Magister Eckhart]

Meister your list is very interesting,I mean it,but I have some doubts about the faustianism of tomism and de Maistre.

We can call it a list philosophers who took the spiritual/idealistic way (except for Hobbes,Nietzsche and some others) , there are many others,such as Democritus,who,in his period of life was very much considered,who took the atomic way and built their own ethics/metaphisics.

I'm not sure how; both fall well within the Faustian time-frame and Thomism at least is actually discussed by Spengler. In fact, Scholasticism is a specific part of world-historical development, and Aquinas a specific expression, therefore, of Faustian Culture at the ripening of Spring before the passage into Summer.

De Maistre as a conservative is almost certainly an expression of the end of style from an aesthetic vantage point - from a social standpoint, the fact that he stands out as an individual means he is in fact an expression in himself of the civilization phase. Like all other people, he is trapped in his Zeitgeist and cannot escape. He therefore must be Faustian or nothing at all.

Regarding the "spiritual/idealistic" nature of the philosophers on the list, I think you may be hasty is casting Nietzsche out in the cold. Nietzsche was a thoroughgoing ethicist and spiritualist. The entire goal of his philosophy was the bringing forth of a new birth of religion - not a rebirth, an entirely new creation. His disdain for Plato and the pure Apollonian is a testament to his own idealism and his own spiritual hierarchy found in Zarathustra. His approach is original, to be sure, but fundamentally his elevation of the Übermensch is the same goal as the Platonic forms: to give society a God and establish a zenith of achievement that the masses will never be able to truly understand, only worship. This is the meaning of the contrast between the Last Man and the Overman. The Overman makes of himself a New God and a New Being. The fact that the Overman shapes a morality that is completely alien to the present ethical system confuses many into believing he is amoral, but he is not: he is the New Morality. "Nicht 'die Menschheit', doch 'Übermensch' ist das Ziel!"

If ever there was a philosopher who revelled in true idealism, it was Nietzsche.

Hobbes, on the other hand, you're quite right to single out. He's on the list only because he represents an early and formative influence on my thought that supplements the Low Anthropology to which I hold, which eventually found better expression in Luther and St. Augustine. I do fundamentally agree with the "state of nature" as an expression of mankind's animalistic nature, and with Hobbes' suggestion that Puritanism and Calvinism are social dangers (he makes the error of saying this of all religion, but in reality his understanding of "religion" doesn't reach beyond Protestant Christianity).


I don't think that's really an accurate characterization of his thought. While there is some differentiation on the Plotinian and Iamblichean schools of Neoplatonism on whether or not the psyche completely descends into the physical, but at no point is the latter really treated in a negative manner (as it is in the other Western school of emanationism: Gnosticism). Indeed, rather than the negative conception of matter as being fallen from the One, the Neoplatonists treated the final emanation—the particular—as the authentic actualization of the universal. This was not only natural, but since the telos which led to matter's emanation came directly from the One—which is synonymous with the Good—the physical emanation is itself good.

I think you'll find that Plotinus is anti-materialist in several respects, however overall I agree with your evaluation here.

And, of course, in regards not just to Plotinus but to all philosophers on my list, I only listed the aspects of their thought which influence my own thinking; I did not make any attempt to exhaustively describe their thought. Therefore, there is much of Plotinus that has not influenced me - but then, there is much I have not yet read.

[Psychonaut]

His disdain for Plato and the pure Apollonian is a testament to his own idealism and his own spiritual hierarchy found in Zarathustra.


If ever there was a philosopher who revelled in true idealism, it was Nietzsche.

WTF have you been smoking, dude? Nietzsche is one of the most famous critics of idealistic metaphysics, not a proponent. In Beyond Good and Evil he spells it out:


There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for example, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer put it, "I will"; as though knowledge here got hold of its objects purely and nakedly as "the thing in itself," without any falsification on the part of either the subject or the object. But that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involved a contradictio in adjecto, I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!
This is, if anything, a declaration of nominalism that stands in opposition not only to idealism, but to the realism (Platonic or Aristotelian) of universals in general.


I think you'll find that Plotinus is anti-materialist in several respects, however overall I agree with your evaluation here.

Have you read his critiques of Gnostic anti-materialism?

[Blossom]

Augustine of Hippo...is hilarious. Got headaches cuz of him. Kreisi dude :(

[Raikaswinþs]

Baruch Spinoza, you can´t call your self a philosopher if you´re not spinozist

[Breedingvariety]

Baruch Spinoza, you can´t call your self a philosopher if you´re not spinozist
Nietzsche was a fan of Spinoza.

I've encountered Spinozists. And I've read Spinoza. He's definitely cleared some ideas in my head.

But, what has brought you to his side, especially?

[Raikaswinþs]

Nietzsche was a fan of Spinoza.

I've encountered Spinozists. And I've read Spinoza. He's definitely cleared some ideas in my head.

But, what has brought you to his side, especially?

Well I first read during highschool that he was expelled from Jewish Faith, and at that time I was considering myself Apostasy (teen revel fervor) . Then I understood how the thoughts of Averrhoes had inspired him .He expanded the idea to the higher steps of rational thinking, de-linked from religious or superstitious noise and yet opened to it. Also I pretty much agree with his concept of substance.

He influenced many other European thinkers for centuries .

[Magister Eckhart]

WTF have you been smoking, dude? Nietzsche is one of the most famous critics of idealistic metaphysics, not a proponent. In Beyond Good and Evil he spells it out:


This is, if anything, a declaration of nominalism that stands in opposition not only to idealism, but to the realism (Platonic or Aristotelian) of universals in general.



Have you read his critiques of Gnostic anti-materialism?

Against the forms heretofore put forth, indeed, but the idealism inherent to the Übermensch idea cannot be ignored, nor can the inherent ethical problem Nietzsche recognises with his declaration of the Death of God and seeks to overcome with The Will to Power. Nietzsche himself was more of an idealist than he might otherwise be willing to admit, but metaphysics is alive and well in revolutionary form in Nietzsche's works.

I have not read Plotinus' critiques of gnosticism. Recommend to me some texts and I'd love to read them, though.

[Psychonaut]

Against the forms heretofore put forth, indeed, but the idealism inherent to the Übermensch idea cannot be ignored, nor can the inherent ethical problem Nietzsche recognises with his declaration of the Death of God and seeks to overcome with The Will to Power. Nietzsche himself was more of an idealist than he might otherwise be willing to admit, but metaphysics is alive and well in revolutionary form in Nietzsche's works.

Wait, are you using idealism in the philosophical sense (e.g. that mentality is ontologically prior to materiality) or in the civilian sense (e.g. the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.)? Nietzsche was certainly the latter, but in no way whatsoever the former.


I have not read Plotinus' critiques of gnosticism. Recommend to me some texts and I'd love to read them, though.

Since reading the Enneads is really boring, I'd recommend this (http://www.amazon.com/Neoplatonism-Gnosticism-Studies-Richard-Wallis/dp/0791413381/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306925683&sr=8-1) collection of essays.

[Lucretius]

Regarding the "spiritual/idealistic" nature of the philosophers on the list, I think you may be hasty is casting Nietzsche out in the cold. Nietzsche was a thoroughgoing ethicist and spiritualist. The entire goal of his philosophy was the bringing forth of a new birth of religion - not a rebirth, an entirely new creation. His disdain for Plato and the pure Apollonian is a testament to his own idealism and his own spiritual hierarchy found in Zarathustra. His approach is original, to be sure, but fundamentally his elevation of the Übermensch is the same goal as the Platonic forms: to give society a God and establish a zenith of achievement that the masses will never be able to truly understand, only worship. This is the meaning of the contrast between the Last Man and the Overman. The Overman makes of himself a New God and a New Being. The fact that the Overman shapes a morality that is completely alien to the present ethical system confuses many into believing he is amoral, but he is not: he is the New Morality. "Nicht 'die Menschheit', doch 'Übermensch' ist das Ziel!"

If ever there was a philosopher who revelled in true idealism, it was Nietzsche.
.

There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.
Friedrich Nietzsche

After coming in contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.
from ECCE HOMO

Well,if there was a man,after Vanini (which I mention because has been said that he was a protonietzschan philosopher and I agree) a war machine against idealistic/spiritualistics thoughst he was Nietzsche. His statements against the Platonic "sons of the sky/heaven" which he opposed the "sons of the earth"were very famous,all his philosophy, from the first books about ancient greek tragedy til the most famous are a big quote of the so called pre-socratic school of thought in which he fitted himself very well. As with Epicurus,Montaigne,Campanella he had a "existential hapax" that changed completely his life towards speculations based upon the indissoluble unity and of body and soul and the mortality of the least one.
The masses always will need some kind of religion,especially those whose lives are pitiful and full of disgraces,the only thing that makes them to go forward is the thought of Divine Justice (Provvidence) and the eternal life in Heaven with peace and joy. In this most philosophers,both ancient and modern agreed.

[Magister Eckhart]

There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.
Friedrich Nietzsche

After coming in contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.
from ECCE HOMO

Well,if there was a man,after Vanini (which I mention because has been said that he was a protonietzschan philosopher and I agree) a war machine against idealistic/spiritualistics thoughst he was Nietzsche. His statements against the Platonic "sons of the sky/heaven" which he opposed the "sons of the earth"were very famous,all his philosophy, from the first books about ancient greek tragedy til the most famous are a big quote of the so called pre-socratic school of thought in which he fitted himself very well. As with Epicurus,Montaigne,Campanella he had a "existential hapax" that changed completely his life towards speculations based upon the indissoluble unity and of body and soul and the mortality of the least one.
The masses always will need some kind of religion,especially those whose lives are pitiful and full of disgraces,the only thing that makes them to go forward is the thought of Divine Justice (Provvidence) and the eternal life in Heaven with peace and joy. In this most philosophers,both ancient and modern agreed.

You miss the point of the Overman here fundamentally; a philosopher like Nietzsche, who wrote as a call to arms (simply look to "The Madman" for evidence) and clearly was sickened by the society around him isn't rebelling against religion in the superficial manner of the Marxists or Darwinists. On the contrary, Nietzsche is the predecessor to all who see the contemporary West as essentially broken - the façade of bourgeois morality covering up a decrepit core lacking any real ethos. His ethical declarations as to the need of a new ethos-- indeed, a new religion-- is an absolute necessity. The Overman overcomes and replaces not religion as an abstraction, but the religion of the Occident.

Nietzsche's argument for instinct and against the bourgeois religious type is completely in tandem with his desire to create a new future and a new moral order. When he speaks of "the religious man", one cannot simply paste a superficial atheistic interpretation on this, but consider it against the rest of his philosophy. Who is "the religious man" of Nietzsche's context but the representative of the bourgeois order clinging desperately to what he has already killed? It is not a man with religion, for the Overman himself has religion, or perhaps better said has religion about him; indeed, he is the very expression of that religion.

As for your Marxist reading of religion as "the opiate of the masses", I would encourage you not to read something so fundamentally post-"Enlightenment" into the great classical authors, none of whom ever suggested that the guiding light of providence is somehow for "the masses" or the peasantry. This is an absurdity. Especially in the early stage of cultural development, at a culture's most vibrant and life-affirming point, the appreciation of and reverence for the Divine as the Divine -- that is to say, for the Eternal -- is and necessarily must be premier: recognition of the Divine during this life-affirming phase is what makes the phase life-affirming..

Finally, I am finding great difficulty with equating a sixteenth-century humanist and pantheist to Nietzsche, who was most certainly responding to his own age, but it is perhaps because I have not read enough of Vanini's work or enough about him.

[Aelred]

Favorite living - Roger Scruton, favorite dead - Novalis

[Bartuc]

I have many that like a lot: Ludwig Von Mises, René Descartes, Michel de Montaigne, Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, Goethe, Henri Poincaré, Lao Tzu...

[Nehellenia]

Immanuel Kant and Voltaire

[superhorn]

Alfred E. Neumann of Mad magazine . What me worry ?

[Ironguard]

probably Nietzsche, Evola, and Heidegger. I can't stand empiricists lol.

[Armando Esteban Quito]

Hobbes

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Wlliam Blake ,D.T Suzuki

[meAyin-sixteen]

pfavorite philosopher, hmmm.

I like watching chickens and ... Well I guess I could say that (I´ll rephrase); Inside every chicken there´s a young chicken philosopher wondering what has just happened. ;) Hey, it´s a miracle of life! Just being there, sleeping under the stars, chasing worms all day long, stumbling upon your own shit.

The purest form of existence ... The existence with no future.

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

[Herr Abubu]

Plato. There is no philosophy without Plato, and philosophers who do not pay their respects to Plato are not philosophers but windbags.

[Cleitus]

1.Friedrich Nietzsche
2.Immanuel Kant
3.Arthur Schoppenhauer

[Armand_Duval]

Sartre, Albert Camus, Nezahualcoyotl.

[lei.talk]

after my contribution to And-your-favourite-Philosopher-is... (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?260-And-your-favourite-Philosopher-is&p=220556&viewfull=1#post220556)

not every reader responded with "Rand ftw :swl Great post. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?17779-Words-you-can-t-stand&p=247410&viewfull=1#post247410)"


there were many comments
along this line:
http://i62.tinypic.com/3343vjo.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))

is that what it looks like from the outside?

from my perspective - it looks like this:


http://i62.tinypic.com/1sba0m.png (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?56956-Nordicism&p=215063&viewfull=1#post215063)

:pound:

but, seriously - it is more like this:

http://i58.tinypic.com/501650.jpg (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?782-I-am-now-listening-to&p=65435&viewfull=1#post65435)

Ahttp://i59.tinypic.com/4lrddy.gifA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._A)

[Merida]

Camus and Foucault.

[Guapo]

Melonhead

[Armand_Duval]

BA201BO Aka C3PO Aka Follarín.

[B01AB20]

BA201BO Aka C3PO Aka Follarín.

fornica et labora, that's my life motto. :)

[Drawing-slim]

Baruch Spinoza, you can´t call your self a philosopher if you´re not spinozist

Yup. I enjoyed reading him.

[curupira]

Marcus Aurelius.

[Shah-Jehan]

There's no better philosopher than Rumi, all of his words are touching and applicable in this world.

[Arch Hades]

F.W. Nietzsche, J.-P. Sartre.

How the fuck are you gonna go with Nietzsche and Sartre? That's like your favorite 2 baseball teams being the Yankees and Red Sox

but yeah, Nietzsche is by far my favorite.

[Ianus]

Immanuel Kant

[B01AB20]

Carlos Castaneda.

[Empecinado]

Marcus Aurelius.

[StormBringer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKobmM2OnDc

[Iker]

Ramiro de Maeztu
http://www.abc.es/Media/201406/15/RamiroDeMaeztu7--644x362.JPG

[Virtuous]

Immanuel Cunt.

on a serious note?

So far Nietzsche.

[Obscene]

Friedrich Nietzsche. :)

[Smeagol]

Machiavelli.

[Mortimer]

Confuzius

[Arbeiter]

Hegel, although most people envolved with philosophy nowadays seems to hate him.

[Pjeter Pan]

Stefan_dusan.

[Hong Key]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKobmM2OnDc

I used to see that guy alot and he does look dirty irl. I also once saw the other older guy from the movie and I was shit faced "your fucking awesome I love Repo Man" i said something like that.

[Ars Moriendi]

Hard to pin one down, so I'll just one I have in my mind right now.

De Maistre, who wrote down the axiom: Each people has the rulers it deserves.

[Scholarios]

Nikos Kazantzakis, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Albert Camus, Baruch Spinoza, D.T. Suzuki, Mishima Yukio, Diogenes of Sinope, John Rawls, David Hume, Anton Chekhov, John Searle, Michel Foucault.

Not all those are philosophers, but yeah.

[Petalpusher]

If it should be just one it would be Paul-Michel Foucault. His work became one of the main weapon to deconstruct the modern world that we are actually live in, hence why i find him even more fascinating.

[TLevin]

Foucault was a sophist, not a philosopher.

The greatest philosophers, and here I judge each philosopher by the fruit of their teachings, are Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

[Jana]

Socrates. He kept it simple, lived by his beliefes and didin't bother to write, still remained a legend.

[Dombra]

Confucius, Socrates. Nietzsche

[glicine max]

max stirner

[curupira]

Marcus Aurelius.

[Kalimtari]

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-all-cruelty-springs-from-weakness-lucius-annaeus-seneca-167133.jpghttp://statusmind.com/images/2014/04/Life-Quotes-38207-statusmind.com.jpg
http://quotepixel.com/images/quotes/life/seneca-quotes_6180-4.pnghttp://www.motivationalquotesabout.com/images/quotes/we-are-more-often-frightened-than-hurt-seneca.jpg

[Minesweeper]

Kierkegaard, Marx, Bergson, Dilthey, Nietzche, Heidegger, Sartre, Gadamer.

[Buchan]

Metaphysics & history: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Polybius, Cicero, Kant.

Politics & social theory: Machiavelli, Vico, Metternich, Burke, Belloc, Ruskin, Huntington.

Theology: Aquinas, Leo XIII, Hooker, C.S. Lewis, Belloc, Chesterton, Newman.

[Iloko]

bump thread

[Nederburg]

Nietzsche by far. Schopenenhauer is also nice.