Philosophers! Which Philosopher do you think was most effective!

[ThatDude30]

effective at what?

Effective at being a Philosopher. There are certain things that make a good Philosopher. Not just anyone can be one. Which one do you think was most effective at being the definition of a philosopher. Effective at doing what made them a great Philosopher.

A philosophy is merely the perceptions of a human...Some ramble, some dart and some try to abstain...I did like Confucius the best early on in life...

I should of said, not just anyone can be considered to be one of the great philosophers

 

[Picaro]

Of those on the list, Aristotle is the obvious choice. My personal favorite is Alfred Ayer, in particular his great book Language, Truth, and Logic.

 

[ThatDude30]

I'm going to have to check that book out. I like John Locke. He believed that knowledge is determined only by experience derived from sense perception. " whatever I write, as soon as I discover it not to be true, my hand shall be the forwardest to throw it into the fire."

 

[Unkotare]

Empiricists are dopes. The senses are easily deceived.

 

[ThatDude30]

Empiricists are dopes. The senses are easily deceived.

So are people in general.

 

[ThatDude30]

You are missing Socrates, the smartest human who ever lived, and the biggest impact (through his heirs) on the world, if that's what you mean by "effective".

I felt everyone would pick Socrates. A lot of people only know Socrates, Aristotle, And Plato. I just want to know who people would pick out of the choices. I'm not saying they are the best just want to know who people would choose out of the choices.

OK, then Plato, Socrates' student, by proxy. Bacon was a philosopher who revolutionized the world by coming up with modern science. DesCartes was a philosopher who also revolutionized the world, but in mathematics, while his flawed philosophy did untold harm. Nietzsche, and the Scotsman, John MacMurray were two of the most powerful, in my view, but one is famous, one is not. Aristotle, Plato's student, and the teacher of Alexander the Great, had an enormous impact and was a philosopher. Marx and Confucius had enormous impacts as well, but weren't, strictly speaking, philosophers. Like the great philosopher, Jesus, neither Socrates, nor Confucius ever wrote anything down, though all three can claim to be founders of civilizations. Socrates was the earliest, and when he was put to death by his own people (like Jesus) at the age of 70-something (Jesus was in his 30s--a shame), Aristotle was just a little boy, and it would be more than three centuries before the three wise men would follow the star to Bethlehem. Dostoevsky, who took Jesus seriously, was probably the greatest novelist to ever live. He wasn't a philosopher, but went philosophically deep in his novels, as did Kafka. Locke probably had the biggest direct impact on us Americans. There, that's my two cents.

I agree. My choice is Locke.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, if by effective you mean to have the greatest number of believers in their philosophy, then you'd have to go with Jesus Christ followed by Muhammad. You seem to have left off Augustine as well. Of those listed, I'd go with Locke.

 

[Vastator]

Out of the choices choose 1 Philosopher you think was most effective and most productive.

You forgot George Carlin.

 

[ThatDude30]

Well, if by effective you mean to have the greatest number of believers in their philosophy, then you'd have to go with Jesus Christ followed by Muhammad. You seem to have left off Augustine as well. Of those listed, I'd go with Locke.

I'm just curious about who people would choose out of the choices I had listed.

 

[ThatDude30]

Well, if by effective you mean to have the greatest number of believers in their philosophy, then you'd have to go with Jesus Christ followed by Muhammad. You seem to have left off Augustine as well. Of those listed, I'd go with Locke.

I'm just curious about who people would choose out of the choices I had listed.

I go with Locke too.

 

[Picaro]

Empiricists are dopes. The senses are easily deceived.

In many respects, yes. You might like F.A. Hayek's opinions on the value of tradition compared to the spectacular failure of 'rational' humanism; I don't agree with a lot of his extensions of his philosophy into economics, but his exegeses on the absurdities and fantasies of 'rationalism' are spot on. Empiricism is itself a philosophy, and very useful in limited applications, like chemistry and the like, but it's merely circular reasoning beyond its limited usefulness, certainly not at all useful to social sciences or greater cultural problems.

 

[Picaro]

I'm going to have to check that book out. I like John Locke. He believed that knowledge is determined only by experience derived from sense perception. " whatever I write, as soon as I discover it not to be true, my hand shall be the forwardest to throw it into the fire."

The so-called 'Enlightenment' thinkers usually rank high with many, at least in the U.S. anyway, because of their influence. I don't think they were all that vastly 'enlightened', except in a small incremental sense; they were certainly good propagandists, and excellent writers, though, Locke especially. I like reading him occasionally myself. Many Catholic scholars covered much of the same territory they did, in many cases they merely 'secularized' much of that work to make it more palatable to Protestant tastes.

 

[cnelsen]

Out of the choices choose 1 Philosopher you think was most effective and most productive.

You forgot George Carlin.

And Rodney "Can't we all get along" King.

 

[Unkotare]

Empiricists are dopes. The senses are easily deceived.

In many respects, yes. You might like F.A. Hayek's opinions on the value of tradition compared to the spectacular failure of 'rational' humanism; I don't agree with a lot of his extensions of his philosophy into economics, but his exegeses on the absurdities and fantasies of 'rationalism' are spot on.....

It's more complicated than you may appreciate.

 

[Picaro]

Empiricists are dopes. The senses are easily deceived.

In many respects, yes. You might like F.A. Hayek's opinions on the value of tradition compared to the spectacular failure of 'rational' humanism; I don't agree with a lot of his extensions of his philosophy into economics, but his exegeses on the absurdities and fantasies of 'rationalism' are spot on.....

It's more complicated than you may appreciate.

More than likely not, but then I don't go in for 'complicated stuff' like FDR conspiracy theories and other rubbish, as you do.

 

[Unkotare]

Empiricists are dopes. The senses are easily deceived.

In many respects, yes. You might like F.A. Hayek's opinions on the value of tradition compared to the spectacular failure of 'rational' humanism; I don't agree with a lot of his extensions of his philosophy into economics, but his exegeses on the absurdities and fantasies of 'rationalism' are spot on.....

It's more complicated than you may appreciate.

More than likely not, but then I don't go in for 'complicated stuff' like FDR conspiracy theories and other rubbish, as you do.

What "conspiracy theories"?

 

[phaethon]

Aristotle.

The greater mass of people have no interest in the theoretical concepts, they only care for the practical.

Aristotle prepared a temporary working hypothesis, which was bound to collapse in the long run, for people with such an attitude, even going so far as to deviate from Plato by only treating the matter aspect. As a student of Plato, he would have been familiar with the theoretical concepts. He has a parallel in Democritus, who was a student of Pythagoras, but mainly emphasized the matter aspect with his atomic theory.

In order to successfully effect this system, Aristotle represented the pre-Socratic philosophers (i.e. Thales) as the first primitive thinkers of ancient Greece. The fact that much of our knowledge of them has come from him should have been an indication that he would have been familiar with their theoretical concepts and what they really intended. Thales, as a teacher and admirer of Pythagoras, who taught a spherical earth, would not have maintained a flat earth. His concept of the earth resting on water is thoroughly symbolic. Aristotle even called it the oldest known theory. Aristotle would have to explain to his materialistic readers how Thales could have possibly arrived at this view from a natural, physical observation.

The prediction of eclipses has been attributed to Thales and he was said to have been the first among the Greeks to inquire into the universe. He also taught that magnets had a soul, an interesting argument which William Gilbert worked upon and paid homage to in his work on electricity. Plato listed him as one of the Lacedaemonian type philosophers, which should be distinguished from the later speculation of sophists, including Socrates, Kant, Hegel, etc.

That we only possess fragments of the pre-Socratic sayings should have enjoined caution in assessing them. It's my opinion that even one preserved quote from one of these pre-Socratic philosophers has greater relevancy than an entire "holy" book.

All things are changing, no man can step into the same river twice. This is in accord with the laws of science.

 

[Picaro]

Of those listed, Aristotle by a long shot. The best ever, and in fact is the author of the best introductory book that should be required reading is Alfred Ayer, and his excellent Language, Truth, and Logic, which is available in its entirety over at archive.org, and at other sites around the web.

Alfred Ayer - Language, Truth and Logic : Alfred Ayer : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

see also ...

A. J. Ayer - Wikipedia

His 'death' experience is noteworthy, given his career before that.

 

[Picaro]

Another plug for Ayer.

 

[Quentin111]

Bertrand Russell, of course!