"Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers

[Existential_Nihilists]

Personally, I like Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus, Dostoevsky and Kafka(somewhat).

[Hresejnen]

I dislike the vast majority of philosophers, myself, but why has no one mentioned Spinoza? How can you not like Spinoza?

[Neo Art]

No, you started trying to quantify accomplishment when you said that philosophy accomplishes nothing and implied that other pursuits might actually have value.

They do have value to me. I really couldn't give much less of a fuck what value they hold to you.

[Conserative Morality]

Again, if philosophy is to be defined so NONSENSICALLY broadly as "making judgements on the value of actions" then every single fucking decision we make is philosophy.

And...?

Choosing tuna over meatball for lunch was philosophy. Thinking "it's gonna rain, I should bring an umbrella to work today so I don't get wet" is philosophy. "gee, I feel like a cigarette, it's been a stressful day" is philosophy.

So it is.

Every god damned decision we ever make with any kind of concious thought is a value judgement of actions. The entire set of human conciousness then becomes "philosophy", and the subject becomes so overly broad as to be nonsensically pointless.

Really? You mean like how physics technically covers all actions of energy and matter, and thus involves all action and lack of action in the Universe, and is thus nonsensically pointless?

Or how behavior covers all activity, and is thus so broad a term as to be nonsensically pointless?

[Unhealthy2]

No, you started trying to quantify accomplishment when you said that philosophy accomplishes nothing and implied that other pursuits might actually have value. Now you seem to be claiming that nothing has value, rendering philosophy no more or less a waste of time than masturbation or pretending to have attended law school.

Also, he seems to think that philosophy is only about trying to find purpose and meaning to things.

[Hydesland]

Again, if philosophy is to be defined so laughably broadly as "making judgements on the value of actions"

Actually, that is a very precise definition of ethics. If you find it so laughably broad, deal with it, that's the bloody definition.

then every single fucking decision we make is philosophy. Choosing tuna over meatball for lunch was philosophy. Thinking "it's gonna rain, I should bring an umbrella to work today so I don't get wet" is philosophy. "gee, I feel like a cigarette, it's been a stressful day" is philosophy.

Clearly you've never studied decision theory, or utility, or preferences. Indeed, ethics DOES cover things like this.

The entire set of human conciousness then becomes "philosophy", and the subject becomes so overly broad as to be nonsensically pointless.

That's why most philosophers specialise in a particular thing. Also, it's funny how everything you're saying is actually quite philosophical and contentious.

[Neo Art]

Again, if philosophy is to be defined so laughably broadly as "making judgements on the value of actions"

Actually, that is a very precise definition of ethics. If you find it so laughably broad, deal with it, that's the bloody definition.

I do "deal with it", by calling it exactly what it is. Worthless.

[Conserative Morality]

I do "deal with it", by calling it exactly what it is. Worthless.

Which is, of course, dealing with philosophy by using philosophy.

Like I said, the irony here is just so entertaining. I kind of wish the microwave was working so I could break out some popcorn.

[Unhealthy2]

I really couldn't give much less of a fuck what value they hold to you.

Which is why you're here still arguing with us about how much value these things hold.

[Neo Art]

Again, if philosophy is to be defined so NONSENSICALLY broadly as "making judgements on the value of actions" then every single fucking decision we make is philosophy.

And...?

And, a topic that is so all encompassing that it ultimitely produces nothing of value is a worthless endeavor.

Are you somehow expecting my answer to change?

[Conserative Morality]

And, a topic that is so all encompassing that it ultimitely produces nothing of value is a worthless endeavor.

Are you somehow expecting my answer to change?

Oh no, I expect you to ignore the arguments I presented in favor of quoting about a third of my post and posting a pretentious response.

But I do find it entertaining, so I persist in arguing with you despite the knowledge that you won't change your mind.

[Neo Art]

I really couldn't give much less of a fuck what value they hold to you.

Which is why you're here still arguing with us about how much value these things hold.

I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing much more of anything I said on post..3 of this thread. Since then it's been all y'all trying to come up with nonsensically dull questions in what I can only surmise is some socratic (yes, I understand the irony) method of trying to loop me back to where I started with an answer different from my original premise.

It's quite uninspired really. I'm pretty much holding the exact same stance as I did in the beginning. It's you folks that seem quite fit to keep arguing with me about it.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing much more of anything I said on post..3 of this thread. Since then it's been all y'all trying to come up with nonsensically dull questions in what I can only surmise is some socratic (yes, I understand the irony) method of trying to loop me back to where I started with an answer different from my original premise.

It's quite uninspired really. I'm pretty much holding the exact same stance as I did in the beginning. It's you folks that seem quite fit to keep arguing with me about it.

As the saying goes, "It takes two to tango".

[Hydesland]

Actually, that is a very precise definition of ethics. If you find it so laughably broad, deal with it, that's the bloody definition.

I do "deal with it", by calling it exactly what it is. Worthless.

Perhaps ethics is, I sympathise in a sense with me being technically a moral nihilist and all, but I cannot prove nihilism true, thus any study on something so fundamental to my belief system is incredibly interesting to me, not the least bit worthless. On the other hand, philosophy covers a lot more than just ethics, so even if ethics is worthless, that doesn't mean all of philosophy is. Again, if you say things like that, then you necessarily say things like "logic is worthless", which is a troubling concept.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It's quite uninspired really. I'm pretty much holding the exact same stance as I did in the beginning. It's you folks that seem quite fit to keep arguing with me about it.

Arguments are two-way, and you seem very keen on keeping up your end.

[Rumbria]

And...?

And, a topic that is so all encompassing that it ultimitely produces nothing of value is a worthless endeavor.

Are you somehow expecting my answer to change?

Oh yes. Pythagoras definitely produced absolutely nothing which proved of any benefit to mankind. That whole theory of his just didn't work out at all, did it...

[Neo Art]

I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing much more of anything I said on post..3 of this thread. Since then it's been all y'all trying to come up with nonsensically dull questions in what I can only surmise is some socratic (yes, I understand the irony) method of trying to loop me back to where I started with an answer different from my original premise.

It's quite uninspired really. I'm pretty much holding the exact same stance as I did in the beginning. It's you folks that seem quite fit to keep arguing with me about it.

As the saying goes, "It takes two to tango".

mm, says the person who has posted *checks* more than 4 times as much as I have no these forums?

[Conserative Morality]

mm, says the person who has posted *checks* more than 4 times as much as I have no these forums?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

[Neo Art]

And, a topic that is so all encompassing that it ultimitely produces nothing of value is a worthless endeavor.

Are you somehow expecting my answer to change?

Oh yes. Pythagoras definitely produced absolutely nothing which proved of any benefit to mankind. That whole theory of his just didn't work out at all, did it...

Pythagoras' mathematical theories were indeed useful in helping to understand geometry and triganometry, I've never stated otherwise. Of course, i dealt with this PAGES ago when explaining the difference between "theorist" and "philosophy".

[Unhealthy2]

Arguments are two-way, and you seem very keen on keeping up your end.

Deciding to stop posting is impossible, didn't you know that?

[Buffett and Colbert]

As the saying goes, "It takes two to tango".

mm, says the person who has posted *checks* more than 4 times as much as I have no these forums?

900 isn't saying he isn't arguing.

[Mediterreania]

1. Zarathustra. The guy Nietzsche hates. He was an ancient Persian prophet, and his ideas are the basis for most Abrahamic religions.
2. Howard Zinn. His version of history is eye-opening.
3. J.P. Proudhon. He brought together anarchism and made it a good thing.
4. John Locke. Natural rights, humans are inherently good. Need I say more?
5. Thomas Jefferson. He is America's greatest writer, and President.

[Neo Art]

mm, says the person who has posted *checks* more than 4 times as much as I have no these forums?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

perhaps the lady doth protest too much, you seem to be putting a lot of energy caring into arguing with me about how little I care.

I'm here because it amuses me, no more no less. Trying to ascribe value to it beyond that is just an error in judgment. You're not going to manage to change my beliefs on the subject no matter how many ascinine, sophmoric and utterly uninspired questions you have to ask, yet you seem to persist.

Why's that, exactly?

[Rumbria]

Oh yes. Pythagoras definitely produced absolutely nothing which proved of any benefit to mankind. That whole theory of his just didn't work out at all, did it...

Pythagoras' mathematical theories were indeed useful in helping to understand geometry and triganometry, I've never stated otherwise. Of course, i dealt with this PAGES ago when explaining the difference between "theorist" and "philosophy".

Yet did Pythagoras not act as a Philosopher King, and rule over a state created by he to advance knowledge, seeing that philosophy was the only real way to advance mankind?

Without the inquisitive nature which the philosopher possesses, there is only dogma, and dogma leads only to stagnation.

[Neo Art]

No, you started trying to quantify accomplishment when you said that philosophy accomplishes nothing and implied that other pursuits might actually have value. Now you seem to be claiming that nothing has value, rendering philosophy no more or less a waste of time than masturbation or pretending to have attended law school.

Also, he seems to think that philosophy is only about trying to find purpose and meaning to things.

actually, I find philosophy to be about FAILING to find purpose and meaning to things. Do try to keep up.