For me, Schopenhauer, Bentham, Hume and Singer, hands down, all because of their clear consistent views on ethics, and their rational and / or empiricism.
There are of course others I like very much (Nitchsze stands out) , but the ones above are my favorites.
I really don't like Descartes. He's clearly more intelligent than I am, this is obvious from his pensées, but I can't see how he could justify some of his claims at all (some of them which were very cruel IMO)
Where do you think scientists got their original ideas from Danny? Philosophy is a form art using logic and reasoning to find a possible end to questions. Personally, I think that they are ingenius.
Did you not read my entire post?
" I think that it served its purpose when it stimulated thought and inspired the right questions that gave birth to science"
I just believe that we no more use for it now that we have a better understanding of science.
I think we need it now still.. Science still needs thought and logic to further inspire its understanding. We have not yet reached the epitome of our knowledge and every bit of understanding, from philosophy, to science, to epistomology and its debate over how we can know, all hold their unique values.
I just feel that philosophy is like being ok with just a hypothesis. It's enough to get my attention but I want more I want mathematical and or physical proof.
I get bored and tired of the word games.
What does science have to say about value theory (aesthetics, ethics)?
Now that is a good point to which I don't have much to defend myself with. Even I have to admit to using philosophy to argue ethics. Although in my circle of friends I can think of only one other who is stimulated enough by the arts to argue about it and he and I have very similar tastes so I have never had to use nor would I know how to use philosophy for aesthetics.
I might add that the kind of "science" being done by the cosmologists blurs the line between science and philosophy. When scientists are talking about branes, a multiverse, multiple (or even infinite) parallel dimensions...how is that NOT philosophy?
I call that imagination. In the same way philosophy gave birth to science, science fiction will give birth to future science. People can use their minds to come up with new ideas and stop wasting them on logic word games that only prove or disprove old ideas.
It's sad that you people represent atheism. Some posts make it obvious you're just as deluded as most religious people, if not more. Especially that last post was just disgraceful.
I have never been known for my grace but rather for my vulgarity. If you have a problem with anything I have posted be more specific so that I may properly defend myself.
I am a fan Quine in particular in regards to logic. I recommend everyone read Methods of Logic at least once. However, you might want someone who understands logic to help you comprehend it if you haven't had any logic background.
For ethics, I tend to be an ethical egoist, so I side with Nietzsche and Rand the most. I am currently reading Twilight of the Idols and the Anti-Christ, which is very interesting. The Virtue of Selfishness is by far my favorite, as it basically serves as a handbook for Objectivists.
I too, dislike Descartes, pretty much for the same reason as you.