Another Philosophers List

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Bonaventurian
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 12:04 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
To include Christian theologians like Augustine and categorically exclude eastern thinkers like Confucius and Nagarjuna is a remarkable double standard. Confucius' philosophy was secular: he referred spiritual questions to the Taoists. Nagarjuna, like Augustine and your other theologians, is also rightly called a philosopher because he, like the Christians, practiced philosophy in the context of a particular spiritual tradition.


Didymos, when you show me a very clear argument which finds its origin solely in the natural light given by Confuscius, I will consider changing my position. Otherwise, it should be obvious that the Easterns are not philosophers. No matter what your understanding of philosophy is, it's undeniable that philosophy begins and ends in "the natural light."

I'm unfamiliar with Nagarjuna. As I said earlier, I threw in the Christian philosopher/theologeans that I did strictly on account on their philosophical content, that is to say, the content which begins and ends in the natural light. Seriously, man, St. Augustine and St. Anselm are very largely Platonist, and St. Thomas Aquinas is very much an Aristotelian.

Quote:
To define philosophy as a science is a mistake. Gosh and others have mentioned plenty of reasons why this is so. I will leave that to them.


I disagree with the 19th/20th century and contemporary philosophers who call philosopy an art as opposed to science. In philosophy, there's clearly a set of right answers and then a set of wrong answers. If we understand "philosophy" as a means to getting the right answers, and getting rid of the wrong answers, then it's very clearly a science. In any case, that's what philosophy is supposed to be, and what's always supposed to have been.

"Science" comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning wisdom.

"Philosophia" literally means "love of wisdom."

Quote:
But I am also interested in this by definition separation of philosophy and theology. Is divine revelation any less a human experience than those experiences which inform philosophy?


Divine revelation by definition originates outside of the natural light. Philosophy involves the reason unaided.

Quote:
As for the original list: no serious objection if we take it to be a list of western philosophers exclusively. Avicenna should probably get a spot. If we take the list to be a top 20 of world philosophers, I can only shake my head at those academics who feel such cultural superiority.


I'm split on Avicenna and Averroes. We clearly owe them a lot for bring Aristotle back to Western Philosophy, and even though their systems were outright wrong, Scholasticism clearly owes them something, even if a large part of Scholastic philosophy involved refuting the Latin Averroeists.

I'm not sure who I'd be willing to take off of the list to put them on, though.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 12:24 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:
Didymos, when you show me a very clear argument which finds its origin solely in the natural light given by Confuscius, I will consider changing my position.


By what argument do you establish that Confucius based his philosophy in something other than "the natural light"?

By what argument do you establish that Confucius' philosophy is any less based on "the natural light" than the philosophy of Socrates?

Bonaventurian wrote:
Otherwise, it should be obvious that the Easterns are not philosophers.


Wow. You do realize that there are easterners who are active in academic western philosophy?

And, no, categoric distinctions such as the one you are making based solely on geography are not obvious. To say that westerners rationalize while easterners do not is far from obvious.

Bonaventurian wrote:
No matter what your understanding of philosophy is, it's undeniable that philosophy begins and ends in "the natural light."


Perhaps: then again, you have not defined "natural light', and considering that you feel the term should be placed in quotations I am assuming you have a very particular meaning.

Bonaventurian wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with Nagarjuna.


You are unfamiliar with Nagarjuna, probably the most significant Buddhist philosopher, yet you also feel confident enough in your knowledge of eastern thought to categorically dismiss all eastern thinkers as philosophers? I beg your pardon: you will have to understand if I take your opinion to be forged out of ignorance of the subject.

Bonaventurian wrote:
As I said earlier, I threw in the Christian philosopher/theologeans that I did strictly on account on their philosophical content, that is to say, the content which begins and ends in the natural light. Seriously, man, St. Augustine and St. Anselm are very largely Platonist, and St. Thomas Aquinas is very much an Aristotelian.


I agree that the mentioned Scholastics drew heavily upon Greek influences. So what?

Thus far, your only argument against (any!) easterners being philosophers is that they have no philosophical content, which you define as content beginning and ending in "the natural light". At the same time, you know nothing of Nagarjuna, which is roughly equivalent to knowing nothing of Aristotle in western philosophy. Imagine: I know nothing of Aristotle and have the audacity to claim that the consideration of aesthetics is absent in western thought.

Bonaventurian wrote:
I disagree with the 19th/20th century and contemporary philosophers who call philosopy an art as opposed to science. In philosophy, there's clearly a set of right answers and then a set of wrong answers. If we understand "philosophy" as a means to getting the right answers, and getting rid of the wrong answers, then it's very clearly a science.


Even if we agree that philosophy is a science, a debate we can take up elsewhere, you have yet to produce a convincing argument as to why there is no philosophic tradition in eastern thought.

In any case, that's what philosophy is supposed to be, and what's always supposed to have been.

Bonaventurian wrote:
Divine revelation by definition originates outside of the natural light. Philosophy involves the reason unaided.


You will have to define for me "natural light". I see nothing unnatural about divine revelation: it seems to be an experience natural to humans, in that, you know, it does happen.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 12:53 pm
@Victor Eremita,
The quote "the natural light" is from Descartes.

Descartes wrote:
Whatever is revealed to me by the natural light - for example from the fact that I am doubting it follows that I exist - cannot in any way be open to doubt. This is because there cannot be a faculty both as trustworthy as the natural light and also capable of showing me that such things are not true.


It is the natural light of reason.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 01:13 pm
@Bones-O,
Which only increases my interest in having Bonaventurian give me his definition of "the natural light" - Descartes was a rationalist, and I doubt that Bonaventurian insists that empiricists are not philosophers.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 01:24 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Yes, I'm rather curious too.
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 02:44 pm
@Victor Eremita,
It's pretty obvious it is a greatest Western philosophy list, but they did include Confucius and talked about Mencius a bit.

I've attached the rest of the list to the original post.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------

21. Berkeley loses to Plato by 684-44, loses to Rousseau by 250-243
22. Epicurus loses to Plato by 637-47, loses to Berkeley by 258-217
23. Russell loses to Plato by 681-50, loses to Epicurus by 270-225
24. Rawls loses to Plato by 682-24, loses to Russell by 265-239
25. Bacon loses to Plato by 649-22, loses to Rawls by 226-209
26. Husserl loses to Plato by 685-38, loses to Bacon by 229-218
27. Smith (Adam) loses to Plato by 651-24, loses to Husserl by 231-219
28. Quine loses to Plato by 677-32, loses to Smith (Adam) by 219-200
29. Kripke loses to Plato by 660-59, loses to Quine by 226-209
30. Parmenides loses to Plato by 657-13, loses to Kripke by 233-196
31. Anselm loses to Plato by 670-15, loses to Parmenides by 205-188
32. Confucius loses to Plato by 610-25, loses to Anselm by 194-187
33. Heidegger loses to Plato by 680-63, loses to Confucius by 242-235
34. Machiavelli loses to Plato by 666-23, loses to Heidegger by 259-240
35. Heraclitus loses to Plato by 651-18, loses to Machiavelli by 196-177
36. Pythagoras loses to Plato by 628-17, loses to Heraclitus by 175-157
37. Democritus loses to Plato by 625-15, loses to Heraclitus by 197-136
38. Ockham loses to Plato by 639-16, loses to Democritus by 169-166
39. Zeno of Elea loses to Plato by 621-20, loses to Ockham by 164-144
40. Sextus Empiricus loses to Plato by 606-11, loses to Zeno of Elea by 151-125
41. Plotinus loses to Plato by 617-15, loses to Sextus Empiricus by 139-129
42. Duns Scotus loses to Plato by 614-15, loses to Plotinus by 158-126
43. Epictetus loses to Plato by 618-16, loses to Duns Scotus by 148-144
44. Thales loses to Plato by 633-13, loses to Epictetus by 159-137
45. Avicenna loses to Plato by 616-22, loses to Thales by 171-146
46. Cicero loses to Plato by 627-10, loses to Avicenna by 153-143
47. Maimonides loses to Plato by 615-19, loses to Cicero by 158-125
48. Chrysippus the Stoic loses to Plato by 583-40, loses to Maimonides by 168-151
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 04:29 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Ah... and there is Anselm. Everyone is happy, no?
 
EquesLignite
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 04:36 pm
@Bones-O,
Yes, and there is Adam Smith......
I still do think Adam Smith should be placed much higher, probably in the first 15, as his influence on our economic thought is immesurable.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 04:40 pm
@Victor Eremita,
No. Jose Ortega y Gasset, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sartre, and John Dewey are all missing. The list includes way too many Roman Catholic philosophers, and pre-Plato Greek philosophers--of which very little of their work survived.
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 05:57 pm
@Victor Eremita,
I was disappointed Sartre, Dewey and Schopenhauer didn't make it, but they were eliminiated in one of the earlier rounds of voting, claiming derivative (Sartre) and declining importance (Dewey, Schopenhauer)
 
Poseidon
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 06:09 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Nobody here heard of Socrates?
Just because he invented the dialectic and saw no nead to write anything down, is no need to ignore him.

Yes, I know you Platonites would like to suggest he did not exist. Do you have a time machine to prove it?



My list

1) Jesus
2) Moses
3) Socrates
4) Homer
5) Descartes
6) Bob Marley
7) Bill Gates
8) Yeats
9) Shakespeare
10) Churchill
11) Solomon
12) Sun Tzu

;-j
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 07:28 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;68419 wrote:
Nobody here heard of Socrates?
Just because he invented the dialectic and saw no nead to write anything down, is no need to ignore him.

Yes, I know you Platonites would like to suggest he did not exist. Do you have a time machine to prove it?



My list

1) Jesus
2) Moses
3) Socrates
4) Homer
5) Descartes
6) Bob Marley
7) Bill Gates
8) Yeats
9) Shakespeare
10) Churchill
11) Solomon
12) Sun Tzu

;-j


In case you did not notice, Socrates is number 6 on the original list.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 08:12 pm
@Theaetetus,
Just wondering - did some people not notice that the list is concerned with the most important philosophers of all time?

I doubt Bill Gates breaks the top ten thousand.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 08:45 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;68444 wrote:
Just wondering - did some people not notice that the list is concerned with the most important philosophers of all time?

I doubt Bill Gates breaks the top ten thousand.


I didn't even notice the Bill Gates addition. Now that is too funny. You could maybe make the argument that Henry Ford should be put on the list due to the revolution in the philosophy of production and manufacturing. Bill Gates was essentially one of the first hacks, and became famous through his ability to manipulate the system. Had it not have been Bill Gates, it would have been someone else doing something very similar.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 08:25 am
@Victor Eremita,
can somebody please tell me why i can't start a thread. i have just registered, so, do i have to earn my stripes or something? what is the point of this restrictive policy? i have some important and mind blowing topics to post. time can not be wasted.

tl
 
jgweed
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 01:46 pm
@Victor Eremita,
You cannot start a new thread until you have replied at least to one existing thread, as I understand the design of this forum. One of the reasons for this is to avoid spammers and spambots inundating the forums. I see, however, that you have started a thread unless I am mistaken. If you still have problems, send a PM to the site administrator,Justin.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 03:14 am
@jgweed,
Theaetetus;68455 wrote:
I didn't even notice the Bill Gates addition. Now that is too funny. You could maybe make the argument that Henry Ford should be put on the list due to the revolution in the philosophy of production and manufacturing. Bill Gates was essentially one of the first hacks, and became famous through his ability to manipulate the system. Had it not have been Bill Gates, it would have been someone else doing something very similar.


Henry Ford was a dunce who bought in completely to the notion of world-wide Jewish conspiracy. The man funded the circulation of anti-Semitic literature in Europe leading up to the Second World War.

He was a smart tinkerer, I'll give him that much.
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 03:23 am
@Victor Eremita,
Wow, I didn't know Henry Ford was an influential anti-Semitic.

What an ass.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 03:33 am
@Victor Eremita,
Henry Ford Invents a Jewish Conspiracy

He was more than an ass. He was one of Hitler's idols, and one of Htiler's great admirers. Ford help fuel the flames of already dangerous European antisemitism.

We Americans have deified a man unworthy of the distinction. Just another historical revision for the sake of propping up our absurd system of corporate capitalism.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 06:44 am
@Victor Eremita,
How does Socrates go on such a list since all we know of his philosophy is Plato's distillation of it?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:36:30