Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Unofficial Philosophers

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Unofficial Philosophers

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

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 His final work remains unpublished.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....

@Reconstructo,

I am Partial to social/linguistic thinkers. I'll put three since that seems to be the established by the O.P., not overwhelming and such.

Erving Goffman:
Dramaturgical analysis all the world's a stage are we are its players, sociocultural frames, Stigmas. I'm prone to people who can explain behavior in an encompassing functional analogy.

Clifford Geertz:
Symbolic Anthropology and Thick Description. attempting to bridge the gap between subject and object with symbolic frames of interpretation.

R.M.W. Dixon:
Equated very convincingly lingusitic evolution with evolutionary biology instead of the traditional genetic historical linguistics which lacked mechanisms to explain many of the more fluid evolutionary traits in places like Australia, Central Africa, and North America.

@Reconstructo,

I would have to say Carl Marie Von Clausewitz. Born in 1780, Clausewitz was a Prussian tactician who, although distinguished in service, his career was not entirely outstanding. However, Clausewitz offered perhaps one of the most valuable (and terrible) contributions to military strategy (and arguably philosophy) entitled On War. There is still a great deal of contention between historians and philosophers as to the exact status of Clausewitz. Notable historians such as the Dupuy brothers have proclaimed Clausewitz "?the greatest philosopher of war" in Encyclopedia of Military History. Especially considering the fact that Clausewitz is being compared to the likes of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, there is clearly something special about him. Is he often thought of as a philosopher? I would say no, but from the perspective of military history, he has lent a great deal to the philosophy of war.

On War is essentially a cold, objective, and overall sterile look at war devoid of humanity and supporting a notion of absolute war. Clausewitz's views on war are in stark contrast to the forgiving nature of Sun Tzu and the ethically fluid nature proposed by Machiavelli. And Clausewitz is especially not your modern day Nicholas Fotion... far from it. Interestingly enough (from a philosophical perspective we may be acquainted with), Clausewitz was arguably influenced by Kant. For example, war should, for example, be put in its proper perspective and the notion of absolute war was a thing in itself and studied as a model to emulate.

Unfortunately, many historians attribute the logical outlook Clausewitz held on war as influences in Germany's aggressive military progression. Bismark was undoubtedly influenced by Clausewitz (through Moltke). Hitler was captivated by the military modus of which Clausewitz proposed (for Clausewitz day), containing huge sections of Bonapartism as well as a theory of absolute war that lent to the formation of Hitler's conception of Blitzkrieg. There were also archaic notions of war proposed by none other than Genghis Khan that influenced Clausewitz. Khan is well known (hilariously through the Conan the Barbarian movies) for his view on war, which was that, "? the greatest joy is to vanquish enemies, chase them, tear them, tear the wealth from them, watch them who love them weep and sexually enjoy their wives and daughters."

Here are a few neat quotes from Clausewitz to get more of an idea of what his philosophy on war was like;

"To introduce into the philosophy of war a principle of moderation would be absurd."
"Let us not hear about generals who conquer without bloodshed."

@Reconstructo,

Two intellectuals I have enjoyed are Lewis Mumford and Marshall McLuhan. The fact that they hated each other was also interesting. The former was kind of a jack of all trades who mostly worked in anthropology, urban planning, and aesthetics, and the latter was a psychologist and media critic. Both have proved to be applicable in today's world, and we could learn a lot about how to make a more enjoyable society from both.

@Reconstructo,

Just looked into Mumford. Seems like my kind of thinker. McLuhan I've been immersed in before, even read his biography. His books are such collages. The Medium is the Massage is the first one I bumped into.

Clausewitz was apparently at the battle of Jena that Hegel heard as he was finishing his Phenomenology. I assume the loss of this battle was part of Clausewitz's motivation to rethink war.

I'm working my way up. Thanks for sharing.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109935 wrote:

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....

Could there be a good reason that they are not ordinarily thought of as philosophers? It might be the same reason that Barack Obama is not ordinarily thought of as a chef. He isn't, and they aren't.

@Reconstructo,

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?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109976 wrote:

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.

@Reconstructo,

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

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 08:02 PM ----------

kennethamy;109979 wrote:

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.

Well, many thinkers are not considered philosophers because they are something else first. Freud, Jung, and Becker were all psychologists, but were also philosophers as well. Chomsky was a linguist and then a political critic but was also a philosopher.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;109980 wrote:

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

What I don't understand is why you would call someone an "unofficial philosopher". The "unofficial" I think I understand. But how do you know he is a philosopher? People can be admirable without being philosophers, can't they?

@kennethamy,

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.

@Reconstructo,

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.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;109987 wrote:

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.

There have been a lot of interesting thinkers who were not philosophers. Tolstoy, Pirandello, and perhaps even Becker.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 09:18 PM ----------

Theaetetus;109988 wrote:

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.

@Reconstructo,

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.

kennethamy;109992 wrote:

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.

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.

@Reconstructo,

I think De Casseres would have described himself as a philosopher, but he had too much of a sense of humor to insist on the term.
Schlegel was certainly considered to be a philosopher, but he and his brother were perhaps more famous for their literary criticism. Tzara was not a philosopher but his DADA manifestos can certainly be interpreted as meta-philosophy.
I don't think the word "philosophy" can be monopolized. It's a wide wide world. Smile

@kennethamy,

I'd define "unofficial philosopher" as an individual who has contributed to philosophy but whose master status (in the sociological sense) is something other than philosopher for example they might be better known as a fiction author, psychologist, sociologist, poet, baseball team manager, visual artist etc.

I'm trying to think of someone obscure to add to the list but all I that I can come up with right now is my two favorite though fairly mainstream fiction writers:

Phillip K. Dick and Milan Kundera

@Reconstructo,

Kundera is genius. Immortality especially. For me, a book like that is as relevant to my "philosophical" thought as a Rorty or a Derrida. I want to add Harold Bloom to my list. I think his concept of "anxiety of influence" can easily be applied to this our creative genre philosophy. Bloom's theory of Hamlet is as philosophical as anything else I use the term for.

@Reconstructo,

John Fowles! On the basis of The Magus and The Aristos

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 09:53 PM ----------

Crick and Watson can certainly be included as FOILS for philosophers, in my view. But then again, I don't know if foils are counted.

@Reconstructo,

Shakespeare, Goethe, Darwin, Einstein: Men who were not philosophers, but damn, did they give philosophy big bones to chew on.

Schiller: More of a poet than a philosopher, but still has interesting philosophical insights.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;109995 wrote:

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.

It does not seem to me that authors who put philosophical digressions (whatever those may be) are therefore philosophers.

The part I don't understand is what it is to use philosophy as a tool. Logic is a tool. Mathematics is a tool. But philosophy?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Unofficial Philosophers

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Unofficial Philosophers

Quick Links

My Account

able2know