Viktor Frankl, his philosophy on the meaning of life and his great innovation in psychology called logotherapy is what makes him great. If you don't know to much about him I suggest to look into it.

He was also an artist too wasn't he?

I think it's a great thread topic, but I can't answer it in the standard way. I can only view individual philosophers as nodes on a network, branches on a tree. Still, to be a sport, I'll do my best.

Rorty writes good English. He incorporates much of the best with the right tone, depth, and wit. Still, he would be nothing without his influences. This applies to most if not all of us.

Nietzsche has fire and relevance. Sometimes he makes me laugh out loud. Of course he also has certain faults, certain absurdities.

Wittgenstein's terseness in the TLP is amazing. He is brutally efficient.

Hegel is such a deep and satisfying meta-physician, and is probably my favorite over all. Like I've said a hundred times, I was turned on to his genius by Kojeve. Kojeve deserves some credit for presenting the core of it so beautifully.

If I was going to give someone a single book to turn them on to philosophy, I would give them Kojeve's lectures on Hegel, for these same lectures touch brilliantly on Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and Kant as well. Also upon the concept of self-consciousness and the nature of time, eternity, and concept.

I think it's a great thread topic, but I can't answer it in the standard way. I can only view individual philosophers as nodes on a network, branches on a tree. Still, to be a sport, I'll do my best.

Rorty writes good English. He incorporates much of the best with the right tone, depth, and wit. Still, he would be nothing without his influences. This applies to most if not all of us.

Nietzsche has fire and relevance. Sometimes he makes me laugh out loud. Of course he also has certain faults, certain absurdities.

Wittgenstein's terseness in the TLP is amazing. He is brutally efficient.

[...]

If I was going to give someone a single book to turn them on to philosophy, I would give them Kojeve's lectures on Hegel, for these same lectures touch brilliantly on Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and Kant as well. Also upon the concept of self-consciousness and the nature of time, eternity, and concept.

My unholy trinity are Heraclitus, Aristotle and Heidegger. The only reason I can come up with for favouring them is that my interest in philosophy started with Nietzche.

I hope it doesn't end with Heidegger, though. Although if you read enough Heidegger you may lose so many IQ points that it might well end there.

Whom would you recommend as an antidote to Heidegger?

I don't think there is one. Just hope it isn't too late to stop reading him (and Nietzsche). There might be a spontaneous remission. Else, if you recover, the road may be hard and arduous. I recommend a stiff dose of logic. And critical thinking.

As was said of Lamont Cranston, "The Shadow" of radio, television, and films, "{They} had the power to cloud men's minds".

Somebody had mentioned Derrida earlier in the thread... If anybody is interested in a video I just produced on "An Introduction to Poststructuralism" -- which is basically a primer on Derrida -- just search for that title on vimeo.com or on YouTube. As a former lurker, I'd be interested in hearing what you all think about it...

I have created a sort of bond with Henri Bergson. His notions of duration and being just resonate with me for some reason.

Yeah reconst, I sorta stumbled upon him through his essay on laughter, which by the way is in my top 3 favorite things ever written.

I happened to be working on some research papers about humor in cros cultural lingusitics, which let me read one of my other favorite anthropological authors. Keith Basso, if you are into the ethnographically linguistic that is.

Does that mean I should or shouldn't read Heidegger's "The Doctrine of Judgment in Psychologism: A Critical-Positive Contribution to Logic"? :bigsmile: