[Tim B]

Here is an interesting question for anyone who knows anything about philosophy (or is keep to learn about it).

Who was the most remarkable philosopher?

This thread is intended to debate the interests of philosophy. And hell, while we are at it we could talk about the lives philosophers lead and even throw in some interesting quotes.

Sven we could get into Plato right away, but I think I will let this topic (and the interesting people it will look at) be launched by someone with an honest opinion about someone like Descartes or Sartre.

Perhaps we could even get into the famed Aristotle vs. Plato argument.

Please, is anyone here as interested in philosophy as I (or at least a might interested)?

[Robbert L]

Well Tim,

I'm quite surprized that you haven't mentioned Socrates, because philosophers after he died spoke of pre-Socrates philosophers and post-Socrates philosophers, well I have Greek as a school subject and I've learnt about Socrates and I have much admiaration for this man, do you have heard stories about him, because I have heard/read!! some of him and I completely stunned the way this man thought!!!!!

[Henri W]

I think Mr Jones-Nerzic is the greatest philosopher -

[Mr Walker]

Henri W, on May 15 2004, 05:29 PM, said:

I think Mr Jones-Nerzic is the greatest philosopher - 

Having met him now on a couple of occassions I think you may have a point
Joking aside this is a potentially very interesting thread.
What makes a philosopher great? Intellect, insight, influence, or a combination of all of them? Is it important to change as well as interpret the world?

[Devin T]

And does being logically incorrect have any bearing on how "great" a philosopher is?
(For example: Thales thought everything was made of water, anaximander thought world was shaped like a drum, heraclitus thought world= fire), etc.)

[Stephen M]

I will consider the question of who is the greatest philosopher and post my opinion later. (I would also like to post a little about the philosophy of Hitler --not as "great" as in good but as "great" as in being successful at mass appeal, etc.)

First, I would like to reccomend a book (again ) called "Sophie's World." It is by Jostein Gaarder. It is basically a history of philosophy, and includes a comprehensive but entertaining rundown of the philosophies of many main philosophers, in chronological order. I would reccomend it for anyone attempting to discern their favourite.

On the question of criteria for evaluating the greatest, I would say that we cannot evaluate philosophers by how much we agree with their words and ideas.

Mr. Walker said:

What makes a philosopher great? Intellect, insight, influence, or a combination of all of them? Is it important to change as well as interpret the world?

Many people would evaluate a philosoph[y]/[er] by its ethics--how "good" it appears to be. But I would actually agree with Mr. Walker's preliminary criteria (intellect, insight, and influence)

Intellect--the ability of the philosopher to reason or make arguments for his/her philosophy. This clearly is a prerequisite of being able to create a philosophy.

Insight--the overall flow of reasoning or basic assumptions made that seem "in tune" with reality or ethics. Insight can be into how the world really operates (such as the exististentialists with their insight into angst) as well as into how it should operate.

Influence--the ability of the philosopher to convince others of his/her philosophy. This is a mark of how "right" the philosopher's ideas were.

(Actually by some of these standards Hitler could be argued to be a "great" [not good] philosopher. I will review that later. )

[Tim B]

Henri W said:

I think Mr Jones-Nerzic is the greatest philosopher - 

Hmm... I was thinking alone the lines of a more historical philosopher, but it is quite possible that many of the moderns have a number of things to compete with the historical philosophers in.

Quote

And does being logically incorrect have any bearing on how "great" a philosopher is?

I would say... yes and no.

Sven said:

Insight--the overall flow of reasoning or basic assumptions made that seem "in tune" with reality or ethics. Insight can be into how the world really operates (such as the exististentialists with their insight into angst) as well as into how it should operate

Here Sven brings forward a criteria he effectively defines as how 'right' the philosopher is. One philosophy could be an effective insight into reality and, as such, would be 'right' in this regard. But I feel a philosopher could be 'wrong' in some things but still win out as the greatest thanks to Intellect and Influence.

Sophie's World... great book.

Mr Walker said:

Is it important to change as well as interpret the world?

I would argue no. Having much appeal and support in your time and influencing the world says very little in regard to great philosophy. I would argue that rather than Hitler being a great philosopher because of his influence he MIGHT be considered one for his views and the system of support he has for this (I stress the idea of MIGHT--and not in the dictator-like way).

Sven said:

Influence--the ability of the philosopher to convince others of his/her philosophy. This is a mark of how "right" the philosopher's ideas were

Right... I agree with the latter if not with the former--least not completely. Descartes had amazing influence and Mathematical genius, but lacked much real support in his time thanks to the lovely Church and their Dark Age views.

Quote

I'm quite surprized that you haven't mentioned Socrates

Well, I was hoping someone else would. Socrates was the martyr to philosophy, condemed to die for his views. He is the founder of logical counter-example and the master of what we know now as the 'Socratic method' of case construction. This all said, I was hoping you would make the case for him, rather than ask me too. There is much to be said.

[Robbert L]

hey all,

Well steve you made a good point with Hitler because this man of course had some (repulsive ) theories. But you'd better point him out as a different kinda philosopher as like in a different class as you know what I mean.

And Tim maybe it's a good idea to make two classes of philosophers:

* From the old Greeks and Romans
* From the last 1000 years

Because in 2000 years time we began to think different so I don't think we can compare them! Well I would like to mention Freud as the most wises modern philosopher!!And of course the "acient" one socrates

[Stephen M]

Robbert L said:

Well I would like to mention Freud as the most wises modern philosopher!!And of course the "ancient" one socrates

Well, by all means make a good argument for either one. I like Freud myself--had a lof of drive. Perhaps for the purposes of this simple dicussion we should bulk all philosophers into the same category (sort of like comparing apples and oranges, but then again philosphers are mainly fruits anyways )

Robbert L said:

Well Steve you made a good point with Hitler because this man of course had some (repulsive  ) theories. But you'd better point him out as a different kinda philosopher as like in a different class as you know what I mean.

Yes, Hitler's theories were anathema to my personal ethics, but I would like to point him out as a great* philosopher. I encourage others to nominate their favourite/most deserving philosopher (or to comment on my choice).

* great not as in good, but pertaining to high achievement in the three categories we discussed earlier.

Intellect:

Well, Hitler doesn't get top marks for this one. He couldn't realy make a logical argument, although was a brilliant orator. He suited his arguments to whichever crowd he adressed, and mostly won them over.

Insight:

Tons. This is where I would really characterize him as a philosopher. His insight was not into ethics, but into reality. Hitler saw how to persuade the masses of an opinion. His political philosophy:

• Nationalist Bavarian, and anti-semitic. (Okay, so not a great start)
  
• Criticize the government for bad things done and claim you can fix them.
  
• Propoganda! Lots--"power of the spoken word", demonstrations, films, posters.
  
• Stick to one agenda--it confuses people if you change
  
• Freedom of achievement in the economic sphere must be mirrored in the political sphere. ()

Hitler had enormous insight into how politics worked, and then--under the guise of trying to overthrow the "system", he used it to his advantage.

Influence:

Do I realy need to say? Hitler turned the seven-member German Workers Party into the Nazi machine that turned more than 13 million people out in the polls in their favour, and consisted of hundreds of thousands to millions of members. He turned the German economy around (out of the depression) and successfully contravened an international treaty several times. He started a war that encompassed the whole world.

And he did not rise to power without difficulties, either. He faced divides in his own party--such as the break of the Strassers.

Before it sounds too much like I admire Hitler , let me point out that, although he is not an admirable person in the sense of his "goodness," he posessed a self-assurance and domination that is certainly inspires awe (ergo: awful). Although a much more solid case could be made for him being the greatest orator, or demagogue, or tyrant in history, I think we could use Hitler as a stepping stone in our discussion of great philosophers--because remember, to be a philosopher does not only entail having visions of a perfect world or creating a list of ethics that is cceptable to the whole world--or putting suffering and angst on a pedestal--but merely an insight into the human condition and society.

Hitler's insights--how to manipulate this to his own twisted advantage--are certainly philosophical.

[Robbert L]

Hey Steve,

Don't know if you know about the "Ancient" philosphers, but I would like to say that Hitler had for a man like him, helpfull circumstances, and a man like Socrates hasn't so I would like to say on that base that Socrates was a better philosopher, because he even got the most of the population against him, certainly the most riches and powerfulest, Hitler died because he wouldn't face the consequences of his actions, Socrates did.!

And about Hitler's use of propaganda this method was mastered by his minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebels and not by Hitler himself

This post has been edited by Robertjan L: 19 May 2004 - 01:09 PM

[Robbert L]

hey all,

Well as you have noticed my most beloved philospher is Socrates, well I would like to argue why.

As you can read in my introduction I study at school Greek, the ancient form and I read stuff about Trojan War, Odysseus, Hercules, and of course Socrates.

Well I've read some stories about him and what the idea behind his thinking was.

In the time he lived in people believed there were a lot of gods, god of thunder, the sea, etc. Well he believed that all humans didn't know a thing, because only gods knew things.

Well he dedicated his life, till everybody sorrow, investigating this. Because his best friend though he was the smarted person that lived, and he went to the oracle of Delfi where the priestes (pythia) said that socrates was the brightest of all men. But Socrates him self was absolutely sure he didn't know a thing!!.


But after he got his message, he went asking every man who was suppost to be smart, politician, poets, even if he could talk to the king he would of tried it. But he asked them so many questions, like what is peace, what is friendship etc.(ti esti-questions translation: what is?) And he didn't stop asking question before the man in front of him didn't know the answer. Eventualy he had questioned all of them and then he turned to the craftsmen. Well he also quetioned them and the same thing occured as with the politicians, ect. But!! the craftsmen were very skilled in what they did, that was something he adimitted (Socrates!)

But his main conclusion about his search was that a man has something where he's specialised in and knows something about it, but they always thing that they know everything even things they don't know, so they know nothing. (I'm sorry maybe I didn't put this very well in English but I've learnt it in Dutch sorry )

And he also concludes that he is, as the oracle said, the smartest man on earth because he knows he knows nothing.

But of course during his search he came across many enemies and the rich youth followed him, but he said he didn't had a student because he couldn't be a teacher because he didn't knew anything. But the charges against him where:

Putting the youth against the society because they were thinking the same as he, and he didn't (as the politicians say) honour the gods)*

* He also said that he had a voice in his head that told him what to do ( Daimondion)

And as i said before he faced the consequences of his actions an he drank the poison because his punishment was death-->

Well the trial it self was very interesting, because at that time in Athens the prosecutor and the defendant could say what they tough was a good punishment, the jury had to pick one of those, they could verdict another sentence!

Well Socrates' prosecutor wanted death penalty because he though that Socrates himself would be forced to take exile, but Socrates wanted (because he dedicated his life for society and he became poor because of it) money from the Athen society. So the jury decided that that was to much and Socrates verdict was Death!

But maybe you know (or don't ) That Socrates married the most pain in the ass (sorry about my words, but they are true!!) woman there was: Xantippe, his philosophy behind this was: If I can live with her I can do anything.

Well this is something about Socrates and why I think he's the greatest philosopher in the history of mankind, and of course he didn't write anything up that was his most truest follower Plato, also a great philosopher but inspired by Socrates!

[Devin T]

Question: does influence of a philosopher really play a role in how great a philosopher they were? (ie. does being born at the wrong time mean you are not great?)

[Robbert L]

hey all,

Devin:

Quote

Question: does influence of a philosopher really play a role in how great a philosopher they were? (ie. does being born at the wrong time mean you are not great?)

Well Devin what do you mean by being born in the wrong time, I don't think that this would make a difference for the philosopher itself, but for the type of philosopher who get much publicity, or those who are rememberized. But I think that what someone makes a great philosopher is that he has/had a lot of influence the people and other philosophers think, in the way they are inspired by the man. Just who is the one that made the most difference in the world of philosophy.

This post has been edited by Robertjan L: 21 May 2004 - 10:09 AM

[Stephen M]

Devin T said:

Question: does influence of a philosopher really play a role in how great a philosopher they were? (ie. does being born at the wrong time mean you are not great?)

I count influence, not only as among the people of their own time, but among people after them, adn most importantly among future philosophers. So one cannot really be born into the "wrong" time, because their influence through all times is considered.

Robbert L said:

Well as you have noticed my most beloved philospher is Socrates, well I would like to argue why.

Very good introduction to Socrates, Robbert. I don't know much about him (well I suppose I know a bit after reading your post ) but I do know that his famous student, Plato, was so influenced by Socrates that he made Socrates the main character in his philosophical books (such as "The Republic").

[Robbert L]

hey Steve,

Quote

Very good introduction to Socrates, Robbert. I don't know much about him (well I suppose I know a bit after reading your post ) but I do know that his famous student, Plato, was so influenced by Socrates that he made Socrates the main character in his philosophical books (such as "The Republic"). 

I would like to make things a bit more clearly for people how aren't familiar with plato:

As I said before Socrates has never written anything about his quest/search whatever you want to call it.
But his most favorite "student" was Plato, and that philosopher wrote a lot of books in a dialogue form, and mostly one of them was Socrates (other names were used of course) but you can tell by the way he puts that man in the dialogue it was a man which had great influence on Plato, and that was of course Socrates. And Steve:

Quote

I count influence, not only as among the people of their own time, but among people after them, adn most importantly among future philosophers

That's true, but this is an adventage for ancient philosopher above those who live nowadays, because it can be realistic to say that a great philosopher is three years old now, but philosophers have to do three things to become known:

*Think different from the "mass"
*They should get a number of followers/students
*They need to write, or any other form of registration of their work!

So that's what something makes you a known philosopher, and the first point is a bit hard but it is necessary