Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Korsan on December 27, 2011 at 3:18am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Danny Sanchez on December 27, 2011 at 8:54am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob spencer on December 27, 2011 at 6:09am

Hegel swiftly followed by Merleau-Ponty  http://profron.net/fun/Merleau-Ponty_Quotes.html for me its like reading poetry

regards

Bob

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Romano on May 28, 2012 at 10:11pm

Schopenhauer

Bertrand Russell

Camus 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shayla on July 1, 2012 at 4:46am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Cox on July 2, 2012 at 12:35am

For me Russell, Voltaire, and Socrates.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Conrad on July 2, 2012 at 1:19am

I've read works by a few philosophers, but I can't say any of them have every done a thing for me. Philosophy, to me, is just a form of religion: making abstract claims that, at best, aren't testable. What is the purpose of philosophy when we have science?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Cox on July 2, 2012 at 8:19am

During a Feminist Theory class, about 12 years ago, I ran into what I though was a funny problem. The prof. rejected a paper concerning the statistical change over time of the income differences, women and men, given education, age, etc.

I was a philosophy major/math minor at the time.

The paper showed that income disparity seemed to be dropping and that the difference seemed to be dependent upon mostly age and education. With present population groups having the least disparity. The disparity seemed to grand-fathered in to the older populations.

The prof. rejected the paper on the basis that mathematics can not prove or be insightful on a philosophical question. I quess I came from more of a natural philosophy background, thinking that all our tools should be used to extract some measure of truth. Locking up 'philosophy' into a class separate from the sciences, which I thought was the promising child of philosophy, could denign it a tool, and condemn it to a state similar to theism. 

She also, suggested that I read Kant! I thought I had, not my favorite! 

Does this whole thing remind you of a turf war? Maybe I am just more fluid in my approach..;p)   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Conrad on July 2, 2012 at 12:05pm

In a sense I suppose it is a turf war, if philosophers are attempting to do the same thing that scientists do (understand reality) but with different means (speculation as opposed to evidence).  So, wouldn't religion be part of the same turf war?  When I grade history papers, I write "evidence?" next to things students write that I don't think they can support with facts; perhaps I should write "interesting philosophy" instead.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by maruli marulaki on August 15, 2012 at 3:48pm

Epicurus.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page