24 votes

Absolute all time favorite Philosopher/Thinker

Ok, so in keeping with the trend on this forum to ask for the opinion of fellow DP'ers about their Favorite __________

This is going to be a tough one for me. There are many area's of philosophy. Many aren't even considered a philosophy, even though this is quite absurd. When i start pondering this question, the first thing comes to mind is "In what capacity?". I appreciate the Economic philosophy of Murray Rothbard and Adam Smith, The spiritual philosophy of Akbar the Great and Ghandi, John Wycliff as well as enlightened atheist thinkers of the 1700's. Moral Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and yet also that of Henry David Thoreau.

Shakespeare is known for incredibly complex and compelling analysis of the human condition(not to mention a blast to read), Tolstoy was brilliantly intricate and aware before he was an intellectual. The scientific philosophy of Leonard Susskind, Issac Newton, and of course Albert Einstien. I could go on. I could bring up many thinkers that are alive today. Many people who don't spend their time pondering the questions of existence, and morality, spirituality, and yet are better equiped to answer them than some of the names i have already listed. For the record, there are opinions of these thinkers that i don't share. Its generally the approach that is so admirable.

In the end i must choose. Its an artificial mandate that i impose on myself for the purpose of this thread.

Today i choose Blaise Pascal. Specifically for his work on faith, reason and totality.

What about you?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

everybody was a statist before Molinari

So are we going to reject all philosophical thought before 1849? You would leave us a very pauperated intellectual world to inhabit.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

You said that stupidity, not

You said that stupidity, not I.

Don't project your depth of confusion on me. Just because you think it follows from a criticism of a writer, that you must abjure everything they write doesn't mean intelligent people do.

I admire Mises as I admire Jefferson. They didn't follow the logic all completely, but they were paving the road for us to get there though they would never use the road themselves. Mises specifically created the foundation for the economic case for freedom, and directly the consequentialist case for it as well. The calculation problem is an unassailable barrier for would be planners of all stripes.

Aside from the bloviating

why would anyone believe your assertion?

I don't approve of belief

and they only need read or have read Kant to see what I am saying. My observation was just to save some well minded person from reading Kant and thinking, "what am I missing? why does everyone think this guy is so smart?" when in fact everyone doesn't. It's just statists who love his apologia and who like to kid themselves this superstitious mare's nest is somehow a work of genius.

Absolutely

We can't have belief!

wtf?

Thanks, for causing a few others to read.

OMG typical collectivist 'logic'

Because I don't approve of something clearly that means you can't have it. Because I don't approve of cocaine clearly that means I want to put you in a rape cage if you're caught. Because I approve of education clearly I want to steal your money to force you to pay for education.

Bastiat laid this to rest over a century ago yet we still suffer from this confusion. Maybe you should read read Bastiat instead of the idiocy that is Kant. Or brush up on your Aristotle because your basic logic needs some work.

I said I don't approve of belief. I don't approve so I would not encourage it. That's all.

omg, typical linear thinking

You've lost track. How did my reply equal your response? Have you ever had a real conversation?

If linear thinking is

If linear thinking is replying to what you said, guilty as charged.

You said "We can't have belief!" in response to me saying I don't approve of belief.

So again because you think those things somehow follow, don't project your illogic on others.

Since you seem to need help with this:

Disapproval does not mean disallowed.

That is why we have different words for these things. If I say you "can't have" that is a qualitatively different assertion from "I disapprove".

Think through some examples of how these things might be different. It might help.

You disapproved of faith

I disapproved of your assertion. You got your panties in a wad.

Later

Kant is taught in law school.

I had never even heard of him until I asked my brother about natural law.
he was in law school at the time.

your assertion is correct.

I read him first when I was taking philsophy.

along with the like of Hegel. Ugh. I was still a Christian then but I had a keen eye for superstitious nonsense from other sources even then.

Like Keynes (or Krugman or Chomsky or even Mark Levin) he was clearly intelligent, but he was trying to make the case for something he had to know was incoherent. When someone writes a bunch to make a case for a few simple ideas it tells me they know the ideas don't stand on their own.

There has been and always has been a market for brilliant men who will spin intricate apologia for what the powerful wish the hoi polloi to believe. The case being undergirded by intricacy and vocabulary alone which the hoi polloi, being perpetually miseducated to revere authority, confuse with profundity.

That said, hehe, and despite risking being attacked as hypocritical, I do agree with Kant (with quibbles I won't go into here) on the duality of valid forms of knowledge. But even so he didn't originate these ideas.

"Ugh. I was still a Christian then "

Chip on shoulder?

This is why your opinion is highly discounted.

No chip. I'm the most

No chip. I'm the most Christian friendly atheist you will likely ever meet. I'm a fan of Christianity.

Of all the things I "used to be", like a neocon and then an NPRBot, Christian is one of the ones that least troubles me.

But it's interesting to see your mode of cognition. Completely disregard the actual conversation because I disagree with you on an unrelated issue. Strikingly reptilian, especially for this venue.

I assure if you ever managed to conjure up a good idea, I would not discount it merely because you're a Christian.

ymbk

"Completely disregard the actual conversation because I disagree with you on an unrelated issue."

There you go again. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

Excusitis much?

Having a conversation with

Having a conversation with you, clearly. (hint, look up an inch).

Not that you are adding much, I keep replying to what you write and you keep trying to pretend you are making some sort of sense by not replying to what I write.

Hence the 'completely disregard' thing.

But nevertheless, conversation it is! Sad as it is, you should have a tremendous sense of near adequacy for sticking with it this far:D

The Look/Say Method

obviously let you down.

Onward through the fog

See! Still a conversation!

Never let failure keep you from trying. Just like in capitalism you need failure or there can be no success. Most people need to fail before they can succeed.

Judging by your current competence at conversation, much less ratiocination, you are due for some spectacular success, my friend:D

Keep striving! If at first (or the 501st) you don't succeed, don't let the nattering nabobs of negativity get to you.

Someday I forsee a comeback montage all for you: "He's a maniac, maniac on the board and he's thinking like he never thought before." (cue bucket of water)

You still cannot conceive

that you are, in fact, speaking to yourself.

When you have finally convinced yourself, you can rest.

Care to share why?

I'd love to hear it.

Séamusín

sure