I would like to start a free-flowing discussion about our favorite thinkers who are not often thought of as philosophers. I'm always on the look-out for a great new personality to expose myself to. Perhaps we can trade little known writers with one another.


Here are a few of mine.


Friedrich Schlegel: His concept of the "transcendental buffoon" I found sublime. He's a strange brew of faith and irony, intuition and criticism. He was one of Hegel's favorite targets, but now seems mostly forgotten. Like Blake, he had prophetic ambitions. He wrote a book Lucinde that uses sexual symbolism for the transcendent. "Lucinde" derives from light. Yet again, Truth is described as a woman. He is sometimes described as a philosopher but rarely described at all.

Benjamin De Casseres: I discovered a 1930 edition of his Mencken/Shaw and it remains one of my favorite books. It's very much philosophy. He responds to Mencken whom he loves with enthusiasm and correction. De Cassere is a brew of the skeptic and the mystic, however strange this may sound. His final work remains unpublished. He's been almost forgotten. I recommend Mencken/Shaw to anyone who can find it.

Tristan Tzara: I think some of the Dada manifestoes are sublime, especially those written by Tzara. Paradox and irony touch their limits within. Dada is the transcendental buffoon prophesied by Schlegel. Motherwell assembled a great book of DADA manifestos. It's like the Tao on Nietzsche and Rubber Cement.

Looking forward to replies....

That is remarkably open-minded. Could there be a reason that you do not discuss them individually? Could it be that you have not read them?

And is it not anti-philosophical and bigoted to attack thinkers one has not been exposed to?

I think you do far more to discredit yourself than to discredit these thinkers with such a comment. And is it not bad sportsmanship?

I only suggested that there might be a reason they were not thought of as philosophers. And the reason is that they are not philosophers. I don't have to have read them to make that suggestion, do I? As I pointed out, the same kind of reason might be why Obama is not considered a chef. I attacked no one by saying he might not be a philosopher, any more than I attacked Obama by saying that he is not a chef. You are very excitable today.

Another psychologist that was also an unofficial philosopher that I have enjoyed is Ernest Becker. His last book, The Denial of Death, was an excellent read, and a wonderful insight to the problem of death from a great thinker on his death bed.

Here is an excellent resource on Becker and his work.

Welcome to the Ernest Becker Foundation

Come fellas don't make this yet another round of the interminable what is a phil argument. Take it at face value, an attempt to find interesting thinkers that could impact philosophy in some way.

Well, no one would consider most psychologists today to be philosophers. But there are ones at the cutting edge of the theory that are philosophers. The idea is that the philosophers in their fields are those that are working with the theoretical basis of their fields.

Why would theorist necessarily be philosophers too? Don't get it. Crick and Watson were certainly working on the cutting edge of genetic theory (and got a Nobel Prize for it). But they never claimed to be philosophers.

Another author that is not considered a philosopher is Tom Robbins. His novels are littered with philosophical digressions on freedom, liberation, feminism, society, religion, politics, life, and being. Sure, the stories behind these novels are generally rather ridiculous, but the philosophy and language innovation throughout the works are excellent.

That reminds me of a wonderful digression in Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. The thumb and the brain are having a discussion of who is more responsible for civilization, and thus, all of the horrible things that have been done in the name of society. Obviously, the thumb stands for labor in the metaphor, and the brain the planners. It is definitely some good food for thought. Not to mention, it is amusing at the same time. Robbins has definitely mastered the art of mixing deep thought and joy.



I obviously wasn't totally clear with what I said (not to mention Crick and Watson were frauds that ripped off the work of Rosalind Franklin). Obviously, it is not applicable to all theory. In general, all the natural scientists do not need to be philosophers to work with theory. But in the social sciences and the humanities a philosopher works with theory. Many philosophers that study the mind are psychologists--or at least the ones that should matter.

The point is, there are academic Philosophers, and there are philosophers. The academics study Philosophy as a subject, and the rest use philosophy as a tool to come to conclusions within their major fields of study.