Favourite Philosophers

Post Reply New Topic

Stoic, Sartre, Dostoevsky.

The problem is that "reason", as it applies to capitalism, for the most part can apply to animals. I mean... as has been noted, on some game-theoretic experiments, animals are more economically rational than humans.


Your first sentence is incorrect. Capitalism is to be understood as a buggy system with occasional crashes. Communism is generally faulted for leading to a degraded political-economic state of affairs due to the complete lack of separation between politics and economic action.

Primitive social systems are different in their workings. I mean, food is one commodity among many, as is shelter, and both of those can become relatively more costly in labor than a primitive social system without showing that the current system is failing in its own terms.

The number who are is undoubtedly mostly a minority. Even among minimum wage workers, the vast majority of them are above poverty level, if not significantly so.


Pure empiricism is stupid. Most empiricisms that make sense have to get past that and require some mechanism to promote learning.

On what will you base your knowledge of the world? Mystical intuition?

Everything you know has been learned through what you sensed and what you experienced.

While we are not born as "blank slates" we are all born ignorant.

ruveyn

while that wasn't his original point, he so happened to be somewhat right. Logic is not empirical (this is arguable; only taken to be true in practice).

What about innate knowledge programmed into the human mind via evolution? That has to exist, along with the cognitive structures to learn and generate new inferences in order for knowledge to exist. Some of these connections drawn are themselves considered pieces of knowledge.

The entire issue ends up being complicated, but overly naive empiricisms don't work. They fall into the "bucket theory of knowledge" that Karl Popper dismissed as folly.

Those are neural circuits. Sort of like having the chips soldered prior to birth. But the contents of the "chips" (or neurons) does not come until later. We do not have specific knowledge but some capabilities "hard wired" we can develop or not develop as circumstances dictate.

ruveyn

I chose Nietzche because i have been interested in his work lately, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. "
Friedrich Nietzsche i particularly like this quote of his because i have always felt that in America we have no self ownership

but i noticed Søren Kierkegaard and Albert Camus are not on there either, those are my two favorite Absurdism philosophers

i noticed MY name isnt on there either! Philosopher is literally Greek for "Lover of Wisdom" so because my obsession has always been an obsession over learning and getting wiser, i am definitely a philosopher. According to Plato, there are two categories of beings who do not do philosophy:
1.Gods and sages, because they are wise;
2.senseless people, because they think they are wise.
The philosopher is not wise; but, aware that he is not wise, seeks wisdom, and loves wisdom

and that GREATLY describes me, in terms of how i view Academics

though i like all the philosophers listed, i chose Nietzsche because thats the one i been researching over the past few weeks

Thanks for that, The King.

What does that final Nietzche quote that you particularly like mean to you? I'd be interested to hear your elaboration as it resonates with me somewhat at the present time.

There is always content. At minimum, some programming is needed for further learning to occur. Now, you can try to make all sorts of subdivisions, but this is not a practical necessity, and I don't even understand what would really drive it.

well my dear friend i am glad you asked, sorry for late reply my sister broke my laptop months ago so i can only get online at school, but that quote in particular i like because well i will explain it this way: in this world we have many types of property but if you think about it that property can change often, so in a way our bodies is the ONLY property we own that is truly ours, in America and many other countries they pass laws restricting what you can or cant do with your body, in America our drug laws, and seat belt laws are prime examples of this. in my mind, Freedom is being able to do whatever you want to YOURSELF as long as you dont infringe upon the rights and freedom of others. basically i believe you should be allowed to do whatever you want to yourself so long as no one else is affected. in America we have a serious lack of self ownership. even suicide, while not illegal, can have you locked up in an insane asylum. i support peoples rights to commit suicide because its their body and their decision but i dont support suicide unless you have a d**n good reason for it. i support peoples rights to put what they want in their bodies as long as they can do so without harming others(infringing on their freedom) that is my definition of freedom.....a very simple definition that is wholly supported by the US Constitution, we cant have Absolute Freedom because that leads to Anarchy but i dont see why we cant have Individual Freedom, the ability to control our own lives completely if we choose to as long as no one else is affected, thats a key part of my belief to ensure the max amount of happiness for everyone.

Interesting that Hume got so many votes. He would be my favourite, too. Kant is also great and so is Sartre. Never understood Berkeley, though. I absolutely do not get his perspective.

Berkeley says there is no existence separate from perception except the existence of God.

ruveyn

That is exactly what I do not get. I read Berkeley and to me he made no sense at all. If there was a god, why would the things he created (everything, right?) only exist if someone was there (apart from him) to perceive them. Why is not he enough? Up to a point I do understand why some philosophers do not believe anything exists while nobody perceives it, but why would the existence of god be an exemption to that rule?

John Locke's concept of the newborn mind as a blank slate has always been interesting to me.

That said, WHY ISNT HE ON THE POLL??????

Interesting but false. There are a lot of built in behaviors and circuits. New born infants know how to recognize faces. They know how to scratch an itch. Every normal human child is pre-wired to pick up a language by about one year of age. Humans are born blabber-mouths.

ruveyn

I like this. Hadn't really thought of body as comparable to other kinds of property before but why not think of this way. Yields at least one insight I like. Also, this is connected to owning your own mind, and indeed your own life, is it not?