Top current philosophers?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Clydesdale
 
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 11:12 pm
@Phredderikk,
I really like Dennett and Sam Harris right now, thanks for the other reccommendations!!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 12:21 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106990 wrote:
I think Richard Rorty is great. He died not long ago. His prose style is as clear as a glass of ice water. He's a slippery old sophist....


But that is only because there is so much jello in that water.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 01:49 am
@Phredderikk,
I've been rereading Essays on Heidegger and Others and yet again I am delighted. Rorty's tone is right. He's a man who knows how to smile on planet Earth, and his thoughts come from a sense of courage and humor. He knows that philosophy is not a privileged genre, that "literature" is no less valuable or "true."
 
Jonblaze
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:22 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;78114 wrote:
Chomsky and Kripke are widely read.


This x100.

Also, if you into philosophy of mind....John Searle's The Mystery of Conciousness is a great, fast read. Plus its free on google books.
 
Emil
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:33 am
@Phredderikk,
Norman Swartz. Still living. :> Special interests: free will and determinism, modal logic, laws of nature/physics.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 07:05 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;125030 wrote:
I've been rereading Essays on Heidegger and Others and yet again I am delighted. Rorty's tone is right. He's a man who knows how to smile on planet Earth, and his thoughts come from a sense of courage and humor. He knows that philosophy is not a privileged genre, that "literature" is no less valuable or "true."


It's the music, not the words that matter. Even if it is "Twinkle, Twinkle, little star" Right? What does "true" mean? Does it mean anything like, true. Or, true! Or True? Or, TRUE. Or true ?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 07:50 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;125061 wrote:
It's the music, not the words that matter. Even if it is "Twinkle, Twinkle, little star" Right? What does "true" mean? Does it mean anything like, true. Or, true! Or True? Or, TRUE. Or true ?


...eurt...:detective:
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:54 pm
@Phredderikk,
I've also been reading Zizek's The Parallax View, which is also good. Zizek also has that playful tone. He puts a twist on all the intellectual cliches he can stink of.
 
Labyrinth
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 07:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Forgot about Jaegwon Kim, philosopher of mind at Brown University. He's published a couple works in the past decade with his main focus being the mind/body problem.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 06:02 pm
@Phredderikk,
Here's a clip from ZIZEK!

I can't help liking him. I saw his videos first and bought a few of his books. The books did not disappoint.

YouTube - ?i?ek on ?i?ek! (1/7)
 
Insty
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 01:17 am
@Phredderikk,
Alasdair MacIntyre. I highly recommend "After Virtue" and/or "Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry."
 
Dosed
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:29 pm
@Phredderikk,
Peter Singer is my favorite. His article "The Singer Solution to World Hunger" is amazing. Sure, there are obvious fallacies, but all in all, it is a pretty interesting article.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 05:32 pm
@Phredderikk,
Phredderikk;77946 wrote:
Any recommendations on current philosophers? (particular branch not important)

thanks!Smile



Just a side question: Why the interest in current philosophers, as opposed to older ones? Wouldn't it be best to be reading the best philosophers of all time, regardless of whether they are alive or not?
 
Emil
 
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 09:52 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;127989 wrote:
Just a side question: Why the interest in current philosophers, as opposed to older ones? Wouldn't it be best to be reading the best philosophers of all time, regardless of whether they are alive or not?


Because their writings are hard to read and may not be entirely relevant now a days, and they use out-dated terminology making it hard to connect to present day thinking, and so on.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 11:48 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;127989 wrote:
Just a side question: Why the interest in current philosophers, as opposed to older ones? Wouldn't it be best to be reading the best philosophers of all time, regardless of whether they are alive or not?


Some of the best more current philosophers do a great job of addressing the older ones. For instance, Nietzsche or Rorty on Plato. Or Kojeve on Hegel. Philosophy tends to feed upon itself. It's as Philosophy (personified) is taking her own advice: know thyself. Also, more recent philosophers are largely the product of less recent philosophers. I think of it as on ongoing conversation that is already centuries old about all that matters most to us.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 05:48 pm
@Reconstructo,
Emil;128050 wrote:
Because their writings are hard to read and may not be entirely relevant now a days, and they use out-dated terminology making it hard to connect to present day thinking, and so on.


Reconstructo;128068 wrote:
Some of the best more current philosophers do a great job of addressing the older ones. For instance, Nietzsche or Rorty on Plato. Or Kojeve on Hegel. Philosophy tends to feed upon itself. It's as Philosophy (personified) is taking her own advice: know thyself. Also, more recent philosophers are largely the product of less recent philosophers. I think of it as on ongoing conversation that is already centuries old about all that matters most to us.


The two of you might want to look at another thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/philosophers/request-philosopher/7599-21st-century-section.html

If there are great current philosophers, you might want to say something there.

As for your specific posts, I was asking Phredderikk a question, which I hope that he or she will eventually answer, not that it is really that important. (I already knew how Emil felt about such things.)
 
Charos
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 05:35 pm
@William,
Quote:
Peter Singer is my favorite. His article "The Singer Solution to World Hunger" is amazing. Sure, there are obvious fallacies, but all in all, it is a pretty interesting article.


I read his Animal Liberation which I was pretty iffy about...I remember he drew some fire for arguing that babies within the first year of life are cognitively comparable to worms and, if their death would increase the overall happiness of the parents then we should allow infant euthanasia...the idea that he'd make an argument like that and yet still be all up in arms over animal rights rubbed me the wrong way. No problem with questionable philosophies but his just seemed bordering on self-sabotage.

For the OP, I know he's not alive anymore (died something like 5 or 10 years back), but Jaques Derrida was always a philosopher I quite enjoyed. Particularly what he has to say about other philosophers...his book "The Gift of Death" was particularly cool...
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 06:08 pm
@Charos,
Charos;128701 wrote:
I read his Animal Liberation which I was pretty iffy about...I remember he drew some fire for arguing that babies within the first year of life are cognitively comparable to worms and, if their death would increase the overall happiness of the parents then we should allow infant euthanasia...the idea that he'd make an argument like that and yet still be all up in arms over animal rights rubbed me the wrong way. No problem with questionable philosophies but his just seemed bordering on self-sabotage.

For the OP, I know he's not alive anymore (died something like 5 or 10 years back), but Jaques Derrida was always a philosopher I quite enjoyed. Particularly what he has to say about other philosophers...his book "The Gift of Death" was particularly cool...


Hahaha. That singer argument is funny. I will use it to scare my next victims with.
 
Charos
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 06:51 pm
@Emil,
To be fair I'm pretty certain he was referencing mentally challenged or disabled in some other fashion children. It's been years (somewhere around a decade or more) since I heard anything about him, last I heard he was head of the board of Ethics at a university I think...only reason I'd heard of him in the first place was an ex of mine had one of his books about animal liberation or something of the sort.
 
RDanneskjld
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 07:33 pm
@Charos,
Charos;128728 wrote:
To be fair I'm pretty certain he was referencing mentally challenged or disabled in some other fashion children. It's been years (somewhere around a decade or more) since I heard anything about him, last I heard he was head of the board of Ethics at a university I think...only reason I'd heard of him in the first place was an ex of mine had one of his books about animal liberation or something of the sort.


He does state that infanticide is sometimes morally permissible and he has also compared abortion to infanticide being 'prompted by the objection that the position I have taken to on abortion also justifies infanticide.'

I certainly recommend his book Pratical Ethics which is a very readable and provides a good insight into his overall ethical account. Singer to this day remains both a very controversial and influential Philosopher.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 03:26:53