Current Events > Which philosopher's views align most with yours?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Machiavelli?
---

I prefer prophets over philosophers
---

wittgenstein
---

didn't the Bible say not to trust philosophers?
---

In terms of what?
---

My top two would be be Camus and Heidegger.
---

Nietzche
---

Stone cold steve austin
---

Thanos
---

diogenes
---

Diogenes
---

Thomas Hobbes
---

Somewhere between Sartre and Camus but more towards the former.
---

Mr. Rodgers
---

Abe Lincoln in Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure.
---

marx

YoshitoKikuchi posted...

Machiavelli?

No, and I'm still not entirely convinced Machiavelli's views align with Machiavelli.

Anyway, I'm not sure what philosopher is closest to mine. I don't really believe in a complete over-arching morality; matters are highly contextual and sometimes even something that seems morally questionable (like, say, lying) can be perfectly moral. I think there are is a few exceptions, of course (for example, actions made out of cowardice, self service, or greed). I also believe in a lot of the teachings of Lao Tzu and think they are a great basis for approaching most issues (change is inevitable, small decisions can lead to big changes over time, nothing is permanent, people need to be adaptable, arguments over the spiritual realm should never take priority and are generally pointless anyway, etc).

gunplagirl posted...

Somewhere between Sartre and Camus but more towards the former.

I read Being and Nothingness and did my final on it for a 400 level Existential philosophy course. But for me, Camus felt more alive.

My feelings on Nietzsche

My issues with Nietzsche is he is quite adept at critiquing modernity, but his forward looking element is lacking. I love the artistry of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and its marriage of philosophy within the scope of a story; however, I think he relies on prophecy too much, with the coming of the New Man. Nietzsche also does not sufficiently explore the ramifications of how a society of New Men would function either, for me at least.
---

probably zeno, stoicism is the underlying principle of many religions but without the bullshit. i'm fairly cynical but diogenes took it way beyond any level i could live with.
---

furb posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Somewhere between Sartre and Camus but more towards the former.

I read Being and Nothingness and did my final on it for a 400 level Existential philosophy course. But for me, Camus felt more alive.

My feelings on Nietzsche

My issues with Nietzsche is he is quite adept at critiquing modernity, but his forward looking element is lacking. I love the artistry of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and its marriage of philosophy within the scope of a story; however, I think he relies on prophecy too much, with the coming of the New Man. Nietzsche also does not sufficiently explore the ramifications of how a society of New Men would function either, for me at least.

<3

I've read excerpts from being and nothingness, I need to read it in its entirety some time. Been trying to read Heidegger lately and it's a trip.

I can't blame you for thinking Camus felt more alive, his wording just comes off as... Not naively so, but still more optimistic?

I've read also sprach zarathustra twice and honestly you've basically said a lot more in two sentences than the people I've talked about it with in person.
---

furb posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Somewhere between Sartre and Camus but more towards the former.

My issues with Nietzsche is he is quite adept at critiquing modernity, but his forward looking element is lacking. I love the artistry of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and its marriage of philosophy within the scope of a story; however, I think he relies on prophecy too much, with the coming of the New Man. Nietzsche also does not sufficiently explore the ramifications of how a society of New Men would function either, for me at least.

I havent read Thus Spome Zarathustra as of yet, but Ive basically read most of his other works. From my understanding, Nietzsche didnt care all that much about the ramifications of the kind of man he is proposing, in fact, thats the sort of his main point, that such a man would not find the motivations of his actions based on negations, as with Christian like morality, but with affirmation. Let the chips fall where they may, fear of consequence is the crux of his critique against slave morality.
---

I read Being and Time as well as Being and Nothingness during the same course. They were optional reads, but I did them for papers.

My professor was a huge Heidegger and Nietzsche guy. He was going to Catholic seminary school in the 60s, and they had them read a bunch of Existential stuff. Right when a lot of it first got translated to English. He decided not to become a priest after reading the stuff, and got his doctorate in it instead. He was a great guy and I loved the Existential course I took from him. I took my ancient philosophy course with him, my ethics course, and my course on The Republic with him. Great professor!

I think Camus is more optimistic. Even though Camus wrote an entire book on suicide!

Heidegger is almost too much. Being and Time is amazing, but those Germans love their dense philosophy tomes. I did not have a course on him, and I think I need one to really get it.

***

I really like Jose Ortega y Gasset too. Beautiful writer!

***

I took a 400 level German Idealism course. This course featured the hardest thing I've ever read.

Wissenschaftslehre by Fichte
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/johann-fichte/#SystOverJenaWiss

***

My department was big on reading direct texts. They rarely, if ever, taught from textbooks.
---

Albert Camus
---

William James

Nietzsche
---

Homer Simpson
---

Snoop Dogg
---

Romes187 posted...

William James

I took an American philosophy course (from a South African); we read William James and Richard Rorty. I got my worst philosophy grade in that course. His brand of pragmatism and the pragmatic rule never clicked with me.
---

furb posted...

Romes187 posted...

William James

I took an American philosophy course (from a South African); we read William James and Richard Rorty. I got my worst philosophy grade in that course. His brand of pragmatism and the pragmatic rule never clicked with me.

Interesting

What is it about Camus and Heidegger that you enjoy? I'm a big fan of Camus

German philosophy is my favorite to read, however. I like systematizing.

I was never a big fan of German Idealism for that reason. I thought they got carried away with it. Like Kant and his structures in Critique of Pure Reason; wasn't it something like the Categorical Imperative or something -- I know there was a lot of "categories" and "manifold* thrown around. Hegel had his historical dialectic. I know Fichte and Schelling have their structures too. Even Heidegger gets carried away with it, to be honest!

What I did like about Heidegger, compared to a lot of the other Germans, sans Nietzsche, he made his structures personal and relevant to every day problems. Depression, suicide, care, alienation. He and Nietzsche, I feel like, are the only Germans who really do this. The rest seem so infatuated with their systems, and I feel like, where the room for humans and their daily problems?

I like Camus a lot because his philosophy seems to be alive. His language does feel trapped by structure. Plus, I like his core topic: philosophizing and living in an absurd world. I think he provides a good ethical framework for how to live knowing you're going to die.

I am going to bed now, so don't expect anymore, sorry! I may read this topic tomorrow though.
---

Diogenes, ideally. But I don't have the balls to jerk it in public.
---

Hey that poster #5 deleted his post that asked the question: "Doesn't the bible say not to trust philosophers". I was going to answer well sort of. It just implies that men's knowledge or philosophical systems shouldn't be placed above God's otherwise we worship men's knowledge of things, and we often don't get things right on our own especially morally. Though I don't mind a clean original joke here and there.

Anyway, I took a philosophy class once. I couldn't get into it cause the classmates were asses towards me cause of my race so I couldn't focus and eventually dropped out. I'm not alone in not caring about philosophy though. Got another Asian friend that don't care about that stuff and he's not even religious. But I'd have to say my favorites are older philosophers that many would consider dated like Rene Descarte, probably Augustine and his choice of Plato, Aquinas for his choice of Arisotolean philosophy and the first mover or cause of the universe, as well as Immanuel Kant and his critique of Pure Reason, which I'm guessing is a critique on rationalism and its view on epistemological knowledge that is gained naturally without experimentation. I'm guessing it's a merger of rationalism and empiricism. I tend to gear towards philosophers who don't hold a deterministic philosophy however though, especially a strict one. As for moral philosophy I'd have to read up on atheists to get a hold of their views. I know many pastors have read Nietzche and understood his aphorisms but disagreed with his views. Wittgenstein I heard was the toughest to grasp. I'm not that big into subjective morality, existentialism and the meaningless of life though.

Less deterministic philosophy, let me explain. Why do I hold such views that many would be against. Well It ties in with morality. Why would we hold accountable for people that can't help themselves? Why hold cops accountable if they can't help but shoot black people? We have to allow some choices cops make as their own responsibility and hope they can change for the better right?

furb posted...

German

Hey the Germans had Martin Luther, though not a philosopher, he had fire in his bellay!

Sorry I don't mean to derail this topic, but what is a good way to get into philosophy? I've wanted to for a while now, and watching The Good Place has helped pique my curiosity. Should I start reading texts, or maybe take a class, what's a good way to start?
---

Loghain

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Thanos

---

Laozi
---

CrimsonWaffle posted...

Sorry I don't mean to derail this topic, but what is a good way to get into philosophy? I've wanted to for a while now, and watching The Good Place has helped pique my curiosity. Should I start reading texts, or maybe take a class, what's a good way to start?

Do you mean Western philosophy. I would just pick up an intro book, Bertrand Russells The Problems of Philosophy is a great accessible intro to the main topics being discussed in the last 2000 years in Western philosophy.
---

Whenever I'm watching Black Mirror, Ted Kaczynski.

Otherwise, Albert Camus probably.
---

Three books that have influenced me are: Permanence and Change by Kenneth Burke, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations by Christopher Lasch and Ideas have Consequences by Richard M.Weaver.
---

CrimsonWaffle posted...

Sorry I don't mean to derail this topic, but what is a good way to get into philosophy? I've wanted to for a while now, and watching The Good Place has helped pique my curiosity. Should I start reading texts, or maybe take a class, what's a good way to start?

Might get some push back for this, but I'd also recommend reading secondary writings first if you decide to tackle some of the more dense and complex works. The secondary sources will break it down more clearly. Once you have a good understanding of the work, then go read the primary.

Second, as you start going through a lot of the texts, there will be words you think you know the meaning of but just be aware that the author is likely using the word in a more nuanced or special way. This holds true with the more "abstract" terminology.

For instance, Kant uses terms like "Pure Reason" or "faculties of understanding", or Heidegger will use a whole slew of new terminology to try and get his point across. Then you have to deal with the fact that translations cause the words to lose even more meaning (Hegel's idea of "spirit"...)

If you want to get a baseline of where to start for more modern philosophy, start with Decartes :)

CrimsonWaffle posted...

Sorry I don't mean to derail this topic, but what is a good way to get into philosophy? I've wanted to for a while now, and watching The Good Place has helped pique my curiosity. Should I start reading texts, or maybe take a class, what's a good way to start?

I'm advocate of reading direct texts. Get annotated ones if you can.

i would start with the following, because they are short but essential:

The Meno - Plato
Meditations on First Philosophy - Descartes

You'll get a taste of ancient philosophy (Plato) and, the foundation of a lot of modern philosophy (Descartes).

***

For an intro into Existential Philosophy, I would suggest Irrational Man by William Barret.
---

I read direct philosophy texts in high school for fun.

My first official course was Intro to Modern Philosophy. A 100 level course I took in fall 2003.

We read the following in the following order:

Meditations on First Philosophy
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Hume)
Critique of Pure Reason (Kant) -- we didn't finish this one but got about haflway through it.
---

Somewhere between Buddha and LaVey.

There actually is more common ground than you'd think. They both place emphasis on the self and encourage you to explore your own path and make your own rules. The difference I see is that Buddhism encourages you to be more passive (too passive imo), while Satanism encourages you to be more (too) selfish.

Ayn Randy Savage
---

I remember Ayn Rand in one of my graduate level political theory classes.

I had read Atlas Shrugged the summer before grad school. I read most of it on a train trip fro Chicago to Flagstaff, AZ hilariously enough.

I was initially taken with it, but I felt extremely reviled by it by the time I hit Galt's speech.

***

I brought this experience up to some classmates and the professor during a sidebar chat during a break in the lecture. My professor said something like this. Everybody should try reading her (meaning political theorists/scientists). He want on to say it was funny. Like 99 percent of everybody that reads her finds the works self indulgent and mean, but the 1 percent become utterly obsessed. No middle ground. Lots of people read Locke, Kant, Marx, Jay, Madison, Hobbes, and many political theorists. Some people love them, some people hate them, and many just are in the middle -- they see some value in it but reject some of it too. Rand does not have this effect on people. Most hate Objectivism to its core but a small group becomes obsessed.
---

frozenshock posted...

Thomas Hobbes

---