|
|
Who was a greater Philosopher? |
Immanuel Kant |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
Plato |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
Socrates |
|
38% |
[ 10 ] |
Hume |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
Berkley |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Other |
|
46% |
[ 12 ] |
|
Total Votes : 26 |
|
|
|
|
Socrates in Disguise Captain
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 5:55 pm
TheBeatnik M.C TigerCatNails Personally, I don't follow a philosopher. I don't believe in looking towards anyone else in my way of thinking. I make up my own philosophy as I go along. I don't understand why others would wish to follow someone else's way of thinking. Especially if that person has long been dead. We are what history makes us, thats a fact. I make up my own mind but like everything else I'm influenced by the world around me. Some of these "long been dead" philosophers devoted there whole lives to a few aspecets of life, and they came up with some really good answers. How is it that you brush that off so easily? I've been trying to get that question out of her for like an hour. She's told me she doesn't believe anything anyone thought in the past is allowed to be agreed with if we are to be individuals... She's just stubborn. I believe she is influenced a lot more than she leaves us to believe.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 6:14 pm
dezrosatweaker TheBeatnik M.C TigerCatNails Personally, I don't follow a philosopher. I don't believe in looking towards anyone else in my way of thinking. I make up my own philosophy as I go along. I don't understand why others would wish to follow someone else's way of thinking. Especially if that person has long been dead. We are what history makes us, thats a fact. I make up my own mind but like everything else I'm influenced by the world around me. Some of these "long been dead" philosophers devoted there whole lives to a few aspecets of life, and they came up with some really good answers. How is it that you brush that off so easily? I've been trying to get that question out of her for like an hour. She's told me she doesn't believe anything anyone thought in the past is allowed to be agreed with if we are to be individuals... She's just stubborn. I believe she is influenced a lot more than she leaves us to believe. Well said, sir.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 10:36 pm
TheBeatnik M.C TigerCatNails Personally, I don't follow a philosopher. I don't believe in looking towards anyone else in my way of thinking. I make up my own philosophy as I go along. I don't understand why others would wish to follow someone else's way of thinking. Especially if that person has long been dead. We are what history makes us, thats a fact. I make up my own mind but like everything else I'm influenced by the world around me. Some of these "long been dead" philosophers devoted there whole lives to a few aspecets of life, and they came up with some really good answers. How is it that you brush that off so easily? I've been trying to get that question out of her for like an hour. She's told me she doesn't believe anything anyone thought in the past is allowed to be agreed with if we are to be individuals... We like to think of ourselfs as individuals but totaly ingoring the history of the world, so that you'r mind isn't currupted isn't indivial at all. I think it's a bit ignorant. (no offence ment)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 10:26 am
TheBeatnik dezrosatweaker TheBeatnik M.C TigerCatNails Personally, I don't follow a philosopher. I don't believe in looking towards anyone else in my way of thinking. I make up my own philosophy as I go along. I don't understand why others would wish to follow someone else's way of thinking. Especially if that person has long been dead. We are what history makes us, thats a fact. I make up my own mind but like everything else I'm influenced by the world around me. Some of these "long been dead" philosophers devoted there whole lives to a few aspecets of life, and they came up with some really good answers. How is it that you brush that off so easily? I've been trying to get that question out of her for like an hour. She's told me she doesn't believe anything anyone thought in the past is allowed to be agreed with if we are to be individuals... She's just stubborn. I believe she is influenced a lot more than she leaves us to believe. Well said, sir. I didn't say that I don't believe anything anyone thought in the past can be agreed on. If that's what it sounded like I'm sorry. I'm just unable to make myself ascribe to the general philosophy of someone else. I may agree with a point or two or even many points or ideas that that person has made but I still don't follow their entire or most of their philosophy. And, in truth I don't really understand philosophers. They seem to enjoy coming up with questions to which there is no answer. But that's just me. And I also NEVER said I was ignoring history. Although, truthfully, knowledge of history has done me any good so far, besides in history class. But that's because my life is so uneventful. And of course I'm stubborn, dezrosatweaker. So are you. If I stopped acting stubborn you wouldn't recognize me anymore.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 3:43 pm
TigerCatNails TheBeatnik dezrosatweaker TheBeatnik M.C TigerCatNails Personally, I don't follow a philosopher. I don't believe in looking towards anyone else in my way of thinking. I make up my own philosophy as I go along. I don't understand why others would wish to follow someone else's way of thinking. Especially if that person has long been dead. We are what history makes us, thats a fact. I make up my own mind but like everything else I'm influenced by the world around me. Some of these "long been dead" philosophers devoted there whole lives to a few aspecets of life, and they came up with some really good answers. How is it that you brush that off so easily? I've been trying to get that question out of her for like an hour. She's told me she doesn't believe anything anyone thought in the past is allowed to be agreed with if we are to be individuals... She's just stubborn. I believe she is influenced a lot more than she leaves us to believe. Well said, sir. I didn't say that I don't believe anything anyone thought in the past can be agreed on. If that's what it sounded like I'm sorry. I'm just unable to make myself ascribe to the general philosophy of someone else. I may agree with a point or two or even many points or ideas that that person has made but I still don't follow their entire or most of their philosophy. And, in truth I don't really understand philosophers. They seem to enjoy coming up with questions to which there is no answer. But that's just me. And I also NEVER said I was ignoring history. Although, truthfully, knowledge of history has done me any good so far, besides in history class. But that's because my life is so uneventful. And of course I'm stubborn, dezrosatweaker. So are you. If I stopped acting stubborn you wouldn't recognize me anymore. So.... stubbornness is the only thing making you an individual? You're right, M.C., sounds ever so slightly ignorant (again, no offence meant). Well... philosophy IS, after all, about answering the Archetypal Questions. There is an answer to each one, we don't relish in the idea of making up questions that don't have answers... why would we try to answer them, then? Why are you here if you don't like philosophers? Plus, not all philosophers are based around that. Many of them just try and launch a new way of thinking into the world, like Nietzche. Others, like Descartes, preferred to question everything around them. There are more than just one type of philosopher you know. Also, there's no taking back that you said you saw no reason to ever agree with what anyone long dead has said in the past... As for your history predicament, I think you HAVE found use for the history you've learned, and it HAS helped you make decisions, just subconsciously, while you weren't even thinking... one time I was betrayed by a friend in a very personal way... I thought of how during the Pellopenisian (sp?) War, the Spartans were betrayed by local Greek farmers and linked it to my problem. The last time one of my friends did something suspicious, I immediately remembered the betrayal of King Leonidas and played it extra safe. That sort of thing. Remember, most of what we know has been discovered in the past. Gravity is a thing from the past, so whyever read Isaac Newton's books anymore? That's the kind of thing you're saying.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 9:03 am
TheBeatnik So.... stubbornness is the only thing making you an individual? You're right, M.C., sounds ever so slightly ignorant (again, no offence meant). Well... philosophy IS, after all, about answering the Archetypal Questions. There is an answer to each one, we don't relish in the idea of making up questions that don't have answers... why would we try to answer them, then? Why are you here if you don't like philosophers? Plus, not all philosophers are based around that. Many of them just try and launch a new way of thinking into the world, like Nietzche. Others, like Descartes, preferred to question everything around them. There are more than just one type of philosopher you know. Also, there's no taking back that you said you saw no reason to ever agree with what anyone long dead has said in the past... As for your history predicament, I think you HAVE found use for the history you've learned, and it HAS helped you make decisions, just subconsciously, while you weren't even thinking... one time I was betrayed by a friend in a very personal way... I thought of how during the Pellopenisian (sp?) War, the Spartans were betrayed by local Greek farmers and linked it to my problem. The last time one of my friends did something suspicious, I immediately remembered the betrayal of King Leonidas and played it extra safe. That sort of thing. Remember, most of what we know has been discovered in the past. Gravity is a thing from the past, so whyever read Isaac Newton's books anymore? That's the kind of thing you're saying. I'm not saying that stubborness is what makes me an individual, that comment was just because dezrosatweaker knows that I'm alwasy stubborn and it would probably be shocking to him if I stopped being so.
I was trying to take back that I said I could never agree with anything a long dead person has said. I simply don't recall making that remark and if I did that's not the way in which I meant it.
As for using knowledge of history, something would have to actually happen to me for me to use that knowledge. I really and truly have no life. Nothing happens to me. I don't do anything worth mentioning. Just school work, play on the computer and read books, and sometimes watch TV. None of those things can use the knowledge of history, except maybe for school work. But I'll concede that it is possible that I've used knowledge of history but I truly can't think of any event in my life where I would have.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 11:31 am
It's okay, it's okay, we're all friends here, dyoods. We're not here to bicker, just to argue! And maybe discuss a bit, too. New posts are going up nicely. This place is growing by leaps and bounds already! I'm so glad.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 3:44 pm
My favorite philosopher? I'm Catholic, so a lot of my ideas may come from there. I believe God created me and my perspective, so I'm thankful to Him for that. Honestly, I haven't read a lot of philosophy, but I don't mind talking about different ideas. I believe in God, He knows everything, so even if I get something wrong, He's still there y'know? Besides, He created everything, what's to worry about if you're with Him?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 3:55 pm
Kogeta My favorite philosopher? I'm Catholic, so a lot of my ideas may come from there. I believe God created me and my perspective, so I'm thankful to Him for that. Honestly, I haven't read a lot of philosophy, but I don't mind talking about different ideas. I believe in God, He knows everything, so even if I get something wrong, He's still there y'know? Besides, He created everything, what's to worry about if you're with Him? Cool. You might take an interest in Aquinas' works from the Middle Ages, or some of the other great Christian philosophers, then. Everyone has some very interesting ideas to put out there. Do a google search on Aquinas or something, I'll bet you'll get some pretty interesting stuff.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:36 pm
I was talking to my pjilosophy teacher today and abarently there's this theory that after 399 years after Socrates' death he came back to change man again. I don't belive this, but I think it's funny because apert from the whole 'son of god detail' their lives were quite similiar.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:41 pm
I don't really have a favorite philosopher. I kinda pick and choose to my liking, as if every philosopher's ideas are a giant buffet and everyone can take what they want as long as they can handle it. Picking up a philosophy you cannot defend in all situations is miserable. Standing by something, even when it's unpopular, gives you a firm grounding and more self-confidence. When you can fully defend your ideas and fully trust in them even when they break a societal norm, then you can say you have truly adopted a philosophy.
Another thing: Many ideas I have taken come not from real philosophers, but from people without a set agenda for promoting a moral ideal. Kafka, for instance, wrote highly personal things, but they can be molded to any idea, though most of them are translated to the idea of the unatainability of a higher power (i.e. God). People who focus on overtly obvious philosophers miss out on smaller ideas that pose even more of a mental workout than could ever be provided by Socrates or Plato.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:19 pm
MechaSeraph I don't really have a favorite philosopher. I kinda pick and choose to my liking, as if every philosopher's ideas are a giant buffet and everyone can take what they want as long as they can handle it. Picking up a philosophy you cannot defend in all situations is miserable. Standing by something, even when it's unpopular, gives you a firm grounding and more self-confidence. When you can fully defend your ideas and fully trust in them even when they break a societal norm, then you can say you have truly adopted a philosophy. Another thing: Many ideas I have taken come not from real philosophers, but from people without a set agenda for promoting a moral ideal. Kafka, for instance, wrote highly personal things, but they can be molded to any idea, though most of them are translated to the idea of the unatainability of a higher power (i.e. God). People who focus on overtly obvious philosophers miss out on smaller ideas that pose even more of a mental workout than could ever be provided by Socrates or Plato. Good point. It already says it in the regulations, but just I'll say it again for everyone: Don't look over the little things. And remember, always keep an open mind about philosophers, and never shoot anyone else down. (that includes socrates and plato, actually)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:05 pm
I recognize most with the philosopher Nietzsche. His life was great, and his accomplishments dispite his physical limitations are even greater. He's a great man, who even wrote his thoughts down on paper when doctors told him to stop or he would die. He truly is an artist. Not only that, but he hated himself, because he couldn't be what he saw as a greater person. His entire book 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' was about a hero he created that was everything he wished he was but wasn't.
But that aside... he wasn't the great man he wanted to be. He was a great man, but no shining god, no bringer of revolution... he was a great man of thought that revolutionized philosophy... but still... as he put it, "Human, All too Human".
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:31 am
Clockwork Leviathan I recognize most with the philosopher Nietzsche. His life was great, and his accomplishments dispite his physical limitations are even greater. He's a great man, who even wrote his thoughts down on paper when doctors told him to stop or he would die. He truly is an artist. Not only that, but he hated himself, because he couldn't be what he saw as a greater person. His entire book 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' was about a hero he created that was everything he wished he was but wasn't. But that aside... he wasn't the great man he wanted to be. He was a great man, but no shining god, no bringer of revolution... he was a great man of thought that revolutionized philosophy... but still... as he put it, "Human, All too Human". Good one. Great to have you on board! As far as I'm aware we don't have a good Nietzche specialist yet. I read an anthology of Nietzche once, but that was a while ago. "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" was way out there... god is dead!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:47 am
I like Kant's philosophy because he brings sense to why I belive that there's something more to life then what we experience. plus I got an A+ on a presentation i did thanks to my opinion on his philosophy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|