Favorite Philosopher of All Time

[GeistFaust]

Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Schoepenhauer, Fichte, Heidegger, Aquinas, Nietszche and Aristotle.

[Magister Eckhart]

Thank the gods, I thought I was going to have to choose only one!

The philosophers who have had a great effect on my own philosophical system and life:

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/uploads/page/302e.jpg
Oswald Spengler

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich-nietzsche.jpg
Friedrich Nietzsche

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/15/1506/WV1BD00Z/art-print/sandro-botticelli-detail-from-st-augustine-in-his-study.jpg
St. Augustine of Hippo

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/plato3.jpg
Πλάτων (Plato)

http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/roman/bust_heraclitus_ephesus_c535_hi.jpg
Ἡράκλειτος

http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/collections/92-saints/big/Botticelli_(Attributed_to)_1481_1482_XX_St._Thomas _Aquinas_(St._Thomas_Aquinas).jpg
St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.hermes-press.com/heidegger5.jpg
Martin Heidegger

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/76/99676-004-0CD0B432.jpg
Πλωτῖνος (Plotinus)

http://www.eckhart.de/GIF/eckhart2.gif
Eckhart von Hochheim

http://history.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/upload/upfiles/2009-08/27/more_articles_information_and_facts_about_wang_yan g_ming20be08a65aef30deb3b3.jpg
王陽明 (Wang Yangming)

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/maistrecolour.jpg
Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre

http://www.artoflegendindia.com/images/images_big/pebge002_thomas_hobbes.jpg
Thomas Hobbes

[GeistFaust]

Thank the gods, I thought I was going to have to choose only one!

The philosophers who have had a great effect on my own philosophical system and life:

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/uploads/page/302e.jpg
Oswald Spengler

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich-nietzsche.jpg
Friedrich Nietzsche

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/15/1506/WV1BD00Z/art-print/sandro-botticelli-detail-from-st-augustine-in-his-study.jpg
St. Augustine of Hippo

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/plato3.jpg
Πλάτων

http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/roman/bust_heraclitus_ephesus_c535_hi.jpg
Ἡράκλειτος

http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/collections/92-saints/big/Botticelli_(Attributed_to)_1481_1482_XX_St._Thomas _Aquinas_(St._Thomas_Aquinas).jpg
St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.hermes-press.com/heidegger5.jpg
Martin Heidegger

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/76/99676-004-0CD0B432.jpg
Plotinus

http://www.eckhart.de/GIF/eckhart2.gif
Eckhart von Hochheim

http://history.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/upload/upfiles/2009-08/27/more_articles_information_and_facts_about_wang_yan g_ming20be08a65aef30deb3b3.jpg
王陽明 (Wang Yangming)

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/maistrecolour.jpg
Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre

http://www.artoflegendindia.com/images/images_big/pebge002_thomas_hobbes.jpg
Thomas Hobbes



I also like Oswald Spengler as well but I like more or less the ones from the Continental and Enlightenment periods. I do like a little of Meister Eckhart. You seem to like a lot of Platonic themes which is not uncommon in German Idealism I prefer Aristotle over Plato but Plato is good when trying to understand philosophy from a poetical point of view. I think out of all those philosophers that I would choose a top three which would consist of Hegel, Schoepenhauer, and Heidegger I was thinking Schelling as well. Hegel and Schoepenhauer are probably my two favorites which is quite funny since neither got along. I like Hegel's style very much all of his obscurities are fun to play with. I like Schoepenhauer's pessimism and his almost depressive and melancholic clarity which is full of a lot of power and might.

[Magister Eckhart]

I also like Oswald Spengler as well but I like more or less the ones from the Continental and Enlightenment periods. I do like a little of Meister Eckhart. You seem to like a lot of Platonic themes which is not uncommon in German Idealism I prefer Aristotle over Plato but Plato is good when trying to understand philosophy from a poetical point of view. I think out of all those philosophers that I would choose a top three which would consist of Hegel, Schoepenhauer, and Heidegger I was thinking Schelling as well. Hegel and Schoepenhauer are probably my two favorites which is quite funny since neither got along. I like Hegel's style very much all of his obscurities are fun to play with. I like Schoepenhauer's pessimism and his almost depressive and melancholic clarity which is full of a lot of power and might.

I find Hegel and Schopenhauer to be incredibly compelling minds, but there is too much in Hegel's lineality and Schopenhauer's fetishistic obsession with Buddhism that I find off-putting. Inevitably, I suppose I have to say both have influenced me indirectly since Hegel influenced Spengler and Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche and Spengler alike. I do admit that Schopenhauer's pessimism resonates with me, but his philosophical corpus simply comes with too many caveats and exceptions which I feel Spengler and Nietzsche overcome.

I find Aristotle's materialism to be fundamentally self-defeating in regards to the purpose of higher intellectual pursuits; I believe that philosophy without theology (and theology without philosophy) is a pointless endeavour that succeeds only in self-aggrandisement. Heraclitus and Plato and their successors in what I might call "holisitic" (opposed to purely "rationalistic" or "mystic") philosophy truly fulfil the role of philosophers.

I overcome Aristotle's materialism with Aquinas, which is why you see him listed rather than Aristotle. I do not look to Aquinas for his philosophies of religion, however- rather as a political philosopher who properly infuses Aristotle's analysis of Platonic socio-political thought with religious and spiritual values.

I have always shown favour to pre-Enlightenment thinkers because of the Enlightenment's materialism and liberalism, which consists of far too much reductionist thought for my tastes, ignoring some of the most fundamentally human considerations of the Classical philosophers and their Faustian successors (like Aquinas, Eckhart, and, I would say, Spengler and Nietzsche). The Moderns are not pleasing to my palate, with the exception of Hobbes if only because he properly identifies social ills and stands out among the Enlightenment thinkers for his belief in strong government focused in a single person. Hobbes represents the last flickering of light before Nietzsche undertook the attack on Enlightenment-era falsehoods, and for that I must give him his due. I must admit, though, that I find his irreligiousness to be repulsive, if understandable considering his time. It took Nietzsche to truly bring philosophy back to ethics.

[GeistFaust]

I find Hegel and Schopenhauer to be incredibly compelling minds, but there is too much in Hegel's lineality and Schopenhauer's fetishistic obsession with Buddhism that I find off-putting. Inevitably, I suppose I have to say both have influenced me indirectly since Hegel influenced Spengler and Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche and Spengler alike. I do admit that Schopenhauer's pessimism resonates with me, but his philosophical corpus simply comes with too many caveats and exceptions which I feel Spengler and Nietzsche overcome.

I find Aristotle's materialism to be fundamentally self-defeating in regards to the purpose of higher intellectual pursuits; I believe that philosophy without theology (and theology without philosophy) is a pointless endeavour that succeeds only in self-aggrandisement. Heraclitus and Plato and their successors in what I might call "holisitic" (opposed to purely "rationalistic" or "mystic") philosophy truly fulfil the role of philosophers.

I overcome Aristotle's materialism with Aquinas, which is why you see him listed rather than Aristotle. I do not look to Aquinas for his philosophies of religion, however- rather as a political philosopher who properly infuses Aristotle's analysis of Platonic socio-political thought with religious and spiritual values.

I have always shown favour to pre-Enlightenment thinkers because of the Enlightenment's materialism and liberalism, which consists of far too much reductionist thought for my tastes, ignoring some of the most fundamentally human considerations of the Classical philosophers and their Faustian successors (like Aquinas, Eckhart, and, I would say, Spengler and Nietzsche). The Moderns are not pleasing to my palate, with the exception of Hobbes if only because he properly identifies social ills and stands out among the Enlightenment thinkers for his belief in strong government focused in a single person. Hobbes represents the last flickering of light before Nietzsche undertook the attack on Enlightenment-era falsehoods, and for that I must give him his due. I must admit, though, that I find his irreligiousness to be repulsive, if understandable considering his time. It took Nietzsche to truly bring philosophy back to ethics.

I like Hegel's linear way of looking at things because after a linear way of thinking is actually non linear. I like Schoepenhauer simply because of his pessimism and because he understand the human condition and human nature quite well. I do agree with you though that Nietszche and Spengler overcame any caveat that Schoepenhauer could not fill in. I like Aristotle's materialism personally its sort of uplifting and lively its just full of life in my eyes. I think Aquinas does the best at integrating Aristotle's materialism into the context of his theology unlike a lot of Platonist and Neo Platonist like St Augustine for example. I do not care for the Platonist I just think they are constantly running around in a circle chasing their tails and they seem to have their heads stuck in the cloud. I do think there were some errors and things that were ignored profusely during the Enlightenment period but for the most part I think they had some good ideas and were intending to do good. I do not care for any of the Moderns whatsoever I prefer anything Pre Hegel primarily and nothing else. Philosophy began and ended with Hegel for the most part. I do agree Nietszche and his morals is revolutionary and I think is something that can not be overthrown or undermined but only can be reinterpreted and put into a different context depending on the era in which it is interpreted. Also on another note I like the poetical styling of Friedrich von Schelling I think he is a major philosopher that does not get his due and is not recognized enough. He is one of the few Platonist I can deal with because there is a lot of rich and protean movements in his philosophy that are inspired by a Platonic type of poetry. He is similar to Heidegger as well and also has some relationship with Hegel and Nietszche as so far as his philosophy is concerned. A notable mention also for my favorite philosopher is Johann Kaspar Schmidt better known as Max Stirner he has a lot of good stuff to say I also like some of Ludwig's Feuerbach's writings.

[Magister Eckhart]

I like Hegel's linear way of looking at things because after a linear way of thinking is actually non linear. I like Schoepenhauer simply because of his pessimism and because he understand the human condition and human nature quite well. I do agree with you though that Nietszche and Spengler overcame any caveat that Schoepenhauer could not fill in. I like Aristotle's materialism personally its sort of uplifting and lively its just full of life in my eyes. I think Aquinas does the best at integrating Aristotle's materialism into the context of his theology unlike a lot of Platonist and Neo Platonist like St Augustine for example. I do not care for the Platonist I just think they are constantly running around in a circle chasing their tails and they seem to have their heads stuck in the cloud. I do think there were some errors and things that were ignored profusely during the Enlightenment period but for the most part I think they had some good ideas and were intending to do good. I do not care for any of the Moderns whatsoever I prefer anything Pre Hegel primarily and nothing else. Philosophy began and ended with Hegel for the most part. I do agree Nietszche and his morals is revolutionary and I think is something that can not be overthrown or undermined but only can be reinterpreted and put into a different context depending on the era in which it is interpreted. Also on another note I like the poetical styling of Friedrich von Schelling I think he is a major philosopher that does not get his due and is not recognized enough. He is one of the few Platonist I can deal with because there is a lot of rich and protean movements in his philosophy that are inspired by a Platonic type of poetry. He is similar to Heidegger as well and also has some relationship with Hegel and Nietszche as so far as his philosophy is concerned. A notable mention also for my favorite philosopher is Johann Kaspar Schmidt better known as Max Stirner he has a lot of good stuff to say I also like some of Ludwig's Feuerbach's writings.

I will grant you Schelling does not receive his due; I myself have only been exposed to excerpts. The reason I neglected to list him is because his influence on my own thought has been so minimal. My concern with the materialism of the Enlightenment is that it lends itself to an ultimately Deistic approach to religion; and, as Diderot (or perhaps Montesquieu, I'm not sure; I only know it wasn't Voltaire) famously quipped, "a Deist is an Atheist who has not lived long enough".

I find that the fullest expression of the Divine is found in the Platonic conception of the highest ἰδέα as something ineffable and incomprehensible. Si enim comprehendit, non est deus, as St. Augustine declared, or, as paraphrased by Meister Eckhart, "If I had a God I could comprehend, I would no longer consider him to be God." I think this sense of reverence of divinity is something lost on materialist philosophy entirely, which makes it insufficient to the need of man to obtain wisdom and access Truth - the highest pursuit of good philosophy and religion alike.

[GeistFaust]

I will grant you Schelling does not receive his due; I myself have only been exposed to excerpts. The reason I neglected to list him is because his influence on my own thought has been so minimal. My concern with the materialism of the Enlightenment is that it lends itself to an ultimately Deistic approach to religion; and, as Diderot (or perhaps Montesquieu, I'm not sure; I only know it wasn't Voltaire) famously quipped, "a Deist is an Atheist who has not lived long enough".

I find that the fullest expression of the Divine is found in the Platonic conception of the highest ἰδέα as something ineffable and incomprehensible. Si enim comprehendit, non est deus, as St. Augustine declared, or, as paraphrased by Meister Eckhart, "If I had a God I could comprehend, I would no longer consider him to be God." I think this sense of reverence of divinity is something lost on materialist philosophy entirely, which makes it insufficient to the need of man to obtain wisdom and access Truth - the highest pursuit of good philosophy and religion alike.

Yes but I think materialism can be put in the right perspective and not be all too consuming. I think we can believe in a material world and a divine world and that it is only natural and instinctive to be oriented towards a materialism or secularism of sorts. We should attempt to direct our attentions towards the divine. I think obtaining Wisdom and accessing truth is a both and sort of things it does not exclude materialism at but rather includes it within its boundaries. I prefer to just sort of stand in awe at the divine and to sort of try to catch flairs of it and make it resonate through every part of my being. This said I think teleologically speaking the Divine speaks on behalf of us while philosophy and materialistic perspectives only mediate themselves towards a divine enlightenment. If one reciprocates the other essentially then it is probably necessary to say that one equally needs to the other to exist so they sort of co exist mutually in a way that makes them mutually inclusive of each other. The reality of life for me is the material world I can possibly access a part of the divine but that is a matter that is apprehended through poetry or meditating on those divine mysteries which can not be comprehended or understood rationally.

[Psychonaut]

The most brilliant thinker of the last century, Alfred North Whitehead:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/whitehead.jpg

He's my favorite (as the thread title indicates we should pick). Other philosophers that've influenced me greatly would include Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Iamblichus, Descartes, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Spengler, Heidegger, Jung, James Hillman, Charles Hartshorne, David Ray Griffin, Freya Mathews, David Skrbina, and Bruce MacLennan.

[Magister Eckhart]

The most brilliant thinker of the last century, Alfred North Whitehead:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/whitehead.jpg

He's my favorite (as the thread title indicates we should pick). Other philosophers that've influenced me greatly would include Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Iamblichus, Descartes, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Spengler, Heidegger, Jung, James Hillman, Charles Hartshorne, David Ray Griffin, Freya Mathews, David Skrbina, and Bruce MacLennan.

Interesting to see a mathematician dominate your philosophical pantheon. Not surprising, but nevertheless interesting.

I'm not sure about those last names there, though - do a Truther, an Environmentalist, and a fellow who essentially just rehashes Whitehead really qualify as "philosophers" in their own right, to be ranked with greats like Heidegger, Spengler, and Descartes? I'm not saying the Truth movement or the Green movement are completely illegitimate (I do disagree with them, but that's not the issue here) - I just don't know whether those two really qualify as philosophers so much as ideologues. I would, for example, shrink from calling Lenin or Rosenberg (to pick two big names) "philosophers".

I have to admit I've never even heard of Bruce MacLennan or Freya Mathews.

[Psychonaut]

Interesting to see a mathematician dominate your philosophical pantheon. Not surprising, but nevertheless interesting.

To be honest, Whitehead's post-Principia work relates little, if at all, to his previous career as a mathematician. Everything after that, culminating in Process and Reality, owes far more to Continental metaphysics than any kind of British analyticism.


I'm not sure about those last names there, though - do a Truther, an Environmentalist, and a fellow who essentially just rehashes Whitehead really qualify as "philosophers" in their own right, to be ranked with greats like Heidegger, Spengler, and Descartes? I'm not saying the Truth movement or the Green movement are completely illegitimate (I do disagree with them, but that's not the issue here) - I just don't know whether those two really qualify as philosophers so much as ideologues. I would, for example, shrink from calling Lenin or Rosenberg (to pick two big names) "philosophers".

Griffin is, among other things, a Truther. But, I really couldn't give two shits about that. My interest in him is purely in his (same goes for Hartshorne) developments of Whiteheadian process philosophy and theology. I certainly think that the two of them are right up there with Whitehead in much the same way that Porphry, Iamblichus and Proclus are connected with Plotinus. The master plants the seeds and the students tend to the orchard and grow the philosophy of the master into several distinct strains. Hartshorne developed the theological angle in ways that Whitehead never touched upon; Griffin did the same for panexperientialism. And, I guess you're referring to Skrbina as "the environmentalist," he's one of the foremost exponents of panpsychism alive today (along with Griffin and Mathews). Panpsychism of the bottom-up variety (the kind that you see in Thales, Heraclitus, Aristotle, Leibniz, Whitehead, etc. [as opposed to the top-down kind that you see in Plato, Plotinus, etc.]) intersects with Deep Ecology in an almost imperative manner. For, if psyche is a quality shared by all, then the ethics of our interactions with "non-thinking" material substances must be completely re-thought.


I have to admit I've never even heard of Bruce MacLennan or Freya Mathews.

Mathews is an Australian panpsychist. MacLennan is a computer scientist and electrical engineer who happens to be a Neoplatonist and has written quite a few wonderful pieces on the intersection between Iamblichan and Jungian doxa and praxes.

[Rosenrot]

Plato, Platão.

I believe in the real world he speak of. I live into it.

[GeistFaust]

Plato, Platão.

I believe in the real world he speak of. I live into it.

That seems very fitting for you TatyZ you are an artist so it makes sense that you believe in Plato. He was certainly much more Idealist and dreamy then Aristotle who tended to be more of a rational pragmatist of sorts. I prefer Aristotle because I like try to practical and pragmatic about how I approach a situation and I am less likely to act on a moment in a creative and in an inspired way much like a poet or artist would.

[Aces High]

http:///upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Julius_Evola.jpg

[Baron Samedi]

http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/pictures/aleister_crowley.jpg

[SaxonCeorl]

For me it's Albert Camus (1913-1960) and his The Myth of Sisyphus

http://www.nouvellesimages.com/img_Albert-Camus--writer--1947_Henri-CARTIER-BRESSON_ref~PH2482_mode~zoom.jpg

My interpretation of The Myth of Sisyphus is that life is ultimately devoid of any greater objective meaning, but that our human instinct generally compels us to seek order and meaning in life. My outlook is to accept both the ultimate meaninglessness of life while also accepting my own instinctual inclinations. I do things in life because I want to, not because I need to do them in order to fulfill some greater purpose; and if at times I do slip into believing a certain value or behavior is objectively good or desireable? Well, that's nothing more than my instinct as well.

If I accept this interpretation, though, I must also accept the fact that many other people's instincts compel them to believe in a more deistic, objectively ordered structure of life. I do accept this, although I may not like it.

Here's a good summary from Wikipedia:


It is not the world that is absurd, nor human thought: the absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when "my appetite for the absolute and for unity" meets "the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle."

He then characterizes a number of philosophies that describe and attempt to deal with this feeling of the absurd, by Heidegger, Jaspers, Shestov, Kierkegaard and Husserl. All of these, he claims, commit "philosophical suicide" by reaching conclusions that contradict the original absurd position, either by abandoning reason and turning to God, as in the case of Kierkegaard and Shestov, or by elevating reason and ultimately arriving at ubiquitous Platonic forms and an abstract god, as in the case of Husserl.

For Camus, who set out to take the absurd seriously and follow it to its final conclusions, these "leaps" cannot convince. Taking the absurd seriously means acknowledging the contradiction between the desire of human reason and the unreasonable world. Suicide, then, also must be rejected: without man, the absurd cannot exist. The contradiction must be lived; reason and its limits must be acknowledged, without false hope. However, the absurd can never be accepted: it requires constant confrontation, constant revolt.

While the question of human freedom in the metaphysical sense loses interest to the absurd man, he gains freedom in a very concrete sense: no longer bound by hope for a better future or eternity, without a need to pursue life's purpose or to create meaning, "he enjoys a freedom with regard to common rules".

To embrace the absurd implies embracing all that the unreasonable world has to offer. Without a meaning in life, there is no scale of values. "What counts is not the best living but the most living."

Thus, Camus arrives at three consequences from the full acknowledging of the absurd: revolt, freedom and passion.

[Magister Eckhart]

For me it's Albert Camus (1913-1960) and his The Myth of Sisyphus

http://www.nouvellesimages.com/img_Albert-Camus--writer--1947_Henri-CARTIER-BRESSON_ref~PH2482_mode~zoom.jpg

My interpretation of The Myth of Sisyphus is that life is ultimately devoid of any greater objective meaning, but that our human instinct generally compels us to seek order and meaning in life. My outlook is to accept both the ultimate meaninglessness of life while also accepting my own instinctual inclinations. I do things in life because I want to, not because I need to do them in order to fulfill some greater purpose; and if at times I do slip into believing a certain value or behavior is objectively good or desireable? Well, that's nothing more than my instinct as well.

If I accept this interpretation, though, I must also accept the fact that many other people's instincts compel them to believe in a more deistic, objectively ordered structure of life. I do accept this, although I may not like it.

Here's a good summary from Wikipedia:

Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux: c'est le suicide.

Camus really does resonate with me for his willingness to confront the biggest problems created by modernity, but I find his nihilism to ultimately miss the mark.


http:///upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Julius_Evola.jpg

Certainly the most compelling author to come out of Italy since Machiavelli, but the whole Hyperborean/Aryan thing coupled with the Theosophic bastardisation of Buddhism he worked with in later writings makes Evola difficult to attach myself to.


Plato, Platão.

I believe in the real world he speak of. I live into it.

I'm always pleased to see more Platonists! :D Plato is probably the best philosophical grounding of all the systems I've encountered - I'm not a purist, to be sure, but as far as a strong foundation goes Plato is probably the best.

[GeistFaust]

Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux: c'est le suicide.

Camus really does resonate with me for his willingness to confront the biggest problems created by modernity, but I find his nihilism to ultimately miss the mark.



Certainly the most compelling author to come out of Italy since Machiavelli, but the whole Hyperborean/Aryan thing coupled with the Theosophic bastardisation of Buddhism he worked with in later writings makes Evola difficult to attach myself to.



I'm always pleased to see more Platonists! :D Plato is probably the best philosophical grounding of all the systems I've encountered - I'm not a purist, to be sure, but as far as a strong foundation goes Plato is probably the best.

I do not disagree with Platonic thought but prefer Aristotle's thoughts and methods. Aristotle also does a decent job at establishing his own system while integrating Platonic perspective. With Aristotle you get the best of both worlds I believe Plato is just merely the base or foundation for Aristotle's works.

[Magister Eckhart]

I do not disagree with Platonic thought but prefer Aristotle's thoughts and methods. Aristotle also does a decent job at establishing his own system while integrating Platonic perspective. With Aristotle you get the best of both worlds I believe Plato is just merely the base or foundation for Aristotle's works.

I still say Aristotle's materialism takes Platonism off its tracks; a better system built upon the Platonic foundation is Neo-Platonism in both its pagan and subsequent Christian formulations.

But we've had this argument already. :p

[GeistFaust]

I still say Aristotle's materialism takes Platonism off its tracks; a better system built upon the Platonic foundation is Neo-Platonism in both its pagan and subsequent Christian formulations.

But we've had this argument already. :p

No don't be a Neo Platonist! Yes I know I just don't care for Plotinus or any of his followers unless they presented things in a poetical fashion. When you try to philosophize Platonic Ideals it sometimes can get quite confusing and it tends not to be good for either philosophy or those Platonic Ideals being talked about.

[Ibericus]

I like spanish filosopher Ortega y Gasset,

[GeistFaust]

I like spanish filosopher Ortega y Gasset,

A lot of the notable Spanish philosophers were influenced by German philosophers they also went to their universities in Germany to study.

[Turkophagos]

http://rlv.zcache.com/epicurus_poster-p228437296432720566trma_400.jpg

[Barbarossa]

I would say: Heraclitus,Plato, Plotinus, Seneca, Meister Erchart, Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spengler, Evola.

[arcticwolf]

Buddha by far. But to really appreciate beauty of his work one has to know Buddhism. Too bad it's not as popular as it should be.

[Barreldriver]

I do not have a favorite philosopher of all time, I do however appreciate the work that went into readings I read by a given philosopher and appreciate their existence in that by reading their works I am given opportunity to either scrutinize or further reinforce my own beliefs, an exercise so to say. I will say that there is one family of philosophers that I do have a great distaste for and that is the Rachel's, especially in the texts like The Right Thing To Do and Elements Of Moral Philosophy in that they always always try to push in a discussion of Utilitarianism even where it does not fit in a given chapter.

[Joe McCarthy]

Auguste Comte.

[Breedingvariety]

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

[antonio]

A lot of the notable Spanish philosophers were influenced by German philosophers they also went to their universities in Germany to study.

It was necessary: at early XIXth, Spain filosofy was still Scolastical Tomism, so they really need to know state-of-the-art on that matter.

My favourite filosofer is Platón and he's clearly the most relevant ever, second would be Pitagoras. OTOH I would like to dialog about today (or at least yesterday) with Camus, Ortega or Spengler.

[Nameless Son]

Well I study philosophy here in the anglophone world (analytic tradition) so my list is maybe a little different...

Donald Davidson, Richard Rorty, Wittgenstein, Saul Kripke, Quine, Hume, Russell, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, Frank Jackson, David Papineau, Tyler Burge, Jerry Fodor, Dummett, Ryle.

GeistFaust, Schopenhauer is great. "You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will." Great quote. Sums up compatiblsim perfectly (I think).

[Ar-Man]

Nagarjuna
Aryadeva
Shantideva
Chandrakirti
Asanga
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (if you want to understand how the New World Order works, you need to know this guy ;) )

[The Alchemist]

Seneca and all thr Stoics. I love them so much, they were very wise and had much in common with oriental philosophy. Also Nietzsche is very interesting, and Bergson too, even if i don't identify myself complitely in their vision, but i love their vitalistic character much.

[Damião de Góis]

Descartes, just because he invented geometry, and gave way to modern maths.

[Logan]

I've not read a lot of them, but Aristotle and Schoepenhauer made some sense.



Legnato:
Therefore give me no counsel,
My griefs cry louder than advertisement.

Antonio:
Therein do men from children nothing differ.

Leonato:
I pray thee peace, I will be flesh and blood;
For there was never yet philosopher
That could endure the toothache patiently,
However they have writ the style of gods,
And made a push at chance and sufferance.

Much Ado About Nothing Act 5, scene 1, 31–38

Shakespeare

[Gratis]

Schopenhauer.

[Comte Arnau]

Raymond Lully (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Llull), John Louis Vives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Luis_Vives), Raymond of Sabiunde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_of_Sabunde), Jaume Balmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Balmes) and Francesc Pujols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesc_Pujols). Just because nobody else is going to mention them. :D

[Kataphraktoi]

Plato, Aristotle. I believe they are not as incompatible as some would say because Plato focuses primarily on the transcendent and Aristotle on the immanent. I think it is their methodology that is the biggest difference between them. Aristotle begins with inductive empirical epistemology which gradually moves towards knowledge of the Divine, he says that man is blessed with a divine spark in order to know that which pertains to the primary being.

The Neoplatonists: Plotinus, Proclus, Boethius.

Pseudo-Dionysius, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa.

The Perennial and Traditionalist school in general, in particular the work of Schuon, Burckhardt, and Coomaraswamy. I began with Evola but have since diverged from his ideas.

I will also mention the Bhagavad Gita, and the Rigveda.

[The Alchemist]

I add to my list also St. Augustine, Eckhart and the theachings of the great Buddha, especially Lotus Sutra. In reality my list is much longer but the ones i mentioned are the ones i prefer. It also depends from the period that i'm living in the moment, in the last years i feel very "spiritual", so those are my fav ones. This is my everyday "food".

[MartelsHammer]

I took a few classes in philosophy at a 2 year college, It made a enormous impact upon my thoughts and thinking in general and I can surely say I will study philosophy til the day I die. Although I'm a newcomer to the field, I'm reading everything I can get my hands on. Currently I'm reading Descartes, Discourse On Method And Meditations On The First Philosophy. I never thought I would be this interested in philosophy but the very first page had me in awe so much so, I thought about the first page for a week. Heres the first page.

"Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already posess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken; the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging right and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open like-wise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it."

[Flintlocke]

The guy who said this:

"Never sleep with the same woman more than twice. Or three times at the very most."

[Oghurkhan]

Well I love many philosphers. I love western philosophy and islamic philosophy the most, but Indian, Japanese and Chinese philosophy are great too.
My top list: Hazrat Inayat Khan (India/Islamic), Jalal-ud-Din Rumi (Islamic), Al-Ghazalli (Islamic), Ibn Arabi (Islamic), Masur al-Khaladj (Islamic), Averoes (Islamic), al-Farabi (Islamic), Zarathustra (Zoroastrian), Zuanghzhi (Taoist), Spinoza (western), Hegel (western), Steiner (western), Plotinus (western), Plato (western) and most of the idealist philosophers. ;)

[Beethoven]

Epicurus

Seneca,Socrates,Ecclesiastes, Lao Tzu

Also Schopenhauer

[Libertas]

Plato

[Breedingvariety]

1. Arthur Schopenhauer
2. Friedrich Nietzsche
3. Baruch Spinoza
4. Laozi
I'm adding Immanuel Kant to my list.

[T. Ulima]

Nietzsche ignited my interest in philosophy, so, he will probably always be my favorite because of that.

[Anarch]

Aristotle, Nietzsche, Spengler, von Mises.

[Lucumone]

David Hume

[george sand]

Nietzsche and of course Marcus Aurelius

[Linet]

Diogenes....:D
That wit...:laugh:

[kabeiros]

Diogenes....:D
That wit...:laugh:
Diogenes is needed in the modern world.
Sadly, we have become mindless consumers of every unnecessary product T.V. advertises, destroying ourselves and our planet on the way...
Some old school contempt of luxury in Diogenes's style is the cure (but don't take it on the extremes like he did, because you might end up being rejected by the rest of humanity:)

[Baltic_Pagan]

Descartes

[Confused Nord]

My favorite is St. Augustine of Hippo, but Plato and Nietzche are also up there.