"Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers

[Ninja Sloths]

Of course not. Discussing meaning of life and action is useless, they should go out and get real jobs, the lazy bums etc etc.

Pretty much, yeah.

So, you don't have a "Top 5" intellectual/philosopher to nominate?

Gee, how could you have got bogged down for 5 pages being "attacked"? Can't a poster be entirely negative and critical and ignore the thread subject nowdays, without getting attacked?

[Hydesland]

Since you brought it up.

Marx is no more philosopher than Adam Smith or Kenneth Waltz. They're theorists, Marx and Smith economic theorists, Waltz political theorists.

Smith considered himself a moral philosopher (economics as a subject didn't even properly exist then in its own right), and was highly influenced by people like Hume, who was unambiguously a philosopher, Hume is also extremely important to many many fields study, as he laid down some basic logical groundwork with which to expand from.

In other words, you're wrong.

[Buffett and Colbert]

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.

CM hasn't repeatedly said how much he doesn't give a shit about the subject at hand, etc, etc. In fact, he's said exactly the opposite and his conduct mirrors. Your conduct so far is completely at odds with what you're saying.

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.

Perhaps they persist for the same reasons you do?

Why's that, exactly?

Indeed, a philosophical question.

[Neo Art]

Since you brought it up.

Marx is no more philosopher than Adam Smith or Kenneth Waltz. They're theorists, Marx and Smith economic theorists, Waltz political theorists.

Smith considered himself a moral philosopher (economics as a subject didn't even properly exist then in its own right), and was highly influenced by people like Hume, who was unambiguously a philosopher, Hume is also extremely important to many many fields study, as he laid down some basic logical groundwork with which to expand from.

In other words, you're wrong.

Well, perhaps improperly vague. Smith may have been a philosopher in a general sense, but those works of his that actually have predictive value are those of an economic theory. While his overall self perspective may have been philosophical, I really only find value in the works that actually have predictive abilities.

[Rumbria]

May I ask, while you clearly have no respect for philosophy as an end in itself, do you see no value in it as a means to an end, that end, of course, being the advancement of mankind?

[Conserative Morality]

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.

So I am. Because I find it amusing. Hell, I said that not too long ago, it'd be nice if you could keep up here.

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.

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?

Like I said before, if you had actually been following this argument, it's because I find your ineffectual floundering to be entertaining. I find the irony in your denials entertaining, I find you entertaining in a vaguely pathetic sort of way. Like watching a dog trying to ice skate, you know it's going nowhere fast, but you can't help but laugh at it.

[Hydesland]

Well, perhaps improperly vague. Smith may have been a philosopher in a general sense, but those works of his that actually have predictive value are those of an economic theory. While his overall self perspective may have been philosophical, I really only find value in the works that actually have predictive abilities.

Well, as I study economics, I agree in a sense. But then, the whole concept of the predictive value of a very large range of economic theories is very contentious, and the study of such is essentially the study of the philosophy of science and whether it can be applied to something as chaotic or complex as the economy, which means I believe the study of philosophical concepts like this are very useful for increasing the clarity and rigour of economics.

[Greater Rhodes]

Philosophers Who've Most Influenced the World
Socrates
Aristotle
Confucius
Descartes
Marx

Most influential Quasi-Philosophers
Abraham
Jesus Christ
Muhammad
Gautama Buddha


My Own Personal Most influential Philosophers
Erasmus
Spinoza
de Montaigne
Kant
Gandhi

[Neo Art]

So, you don't have a "Top 5" intellectual/philosopher to nominate?

Gee, how could you have got bogged down for 5 pages being "attacked"? Can't a poster be entirely negative and critical and ignore the thread subject nowdays, without getting attacked?

Funny enough, pointing out that I don't find philosophy to be particularly intellectual an exercise is, in a roundabout way, pretty germain to the topic. My answer is "none" because I don't find philosophical work worth quantifying as "intellectual".

What has somehow happened across the last 5 pages however, is that rather persistant efforts by individuals who must have taken such grave offense, have managed to turn the topic of the conversation from what it was into, somehow, a topic about me.'

As you persist on doing now.

I hate to do this, because I generally thought I could have enough respect for the folks on here, but at this point I find it necessary to remind y'all that I am not the topic of this thread. My particular outlook is not the topic of this thread. My original post was on topic (though admittedly in a roundabout fashion), and since then has been the subject of persistant attempts to turn it all about lil ole me. And while I love all the attention, really I do, I find myself having to say, yet again, that I am not the topic of this thread, and while I'm flatter, I really am, that you all seem so interested in talking about me, it's really not fair to the rest of the forum, k?

[Conserative Morality]

Funny enough, pointing out that I don't find philosophy to be particularly intellectual an exercise is, in a roundabout way, pretty germain to the topic. My answer is "none" because I don't find philosophical work worth quantifying as "intellectual".

What has somehow happened across the last 5 pages however, is that rather persistant efforts by individuals who must have taken such grave offense, have managed to turn the topic of the conversation from what it was into, somehow, a topic about me.'

As you persist on doing now.

I hate to do this, because I generally thought I could have enough respect for the folks on here, but at this point I find it necessary to remind y'all that I am not the topic of this thread. My particular outlook is not the topic of this thread. My original post was on topic (though admittedly in a roundabout fashion), and since then has been the subject of persistant attempts to turn it all about lil ole me. And while I love all the attention, really I do, I find myself having to say, yet again, that I am not the topic of this thread, and while I'm flatter, I really am, that you all seem so interested in talking about me, it's really not fair to the rest of the forum, k?

Have I mentioned I also find your persecution complex amusing? If I haven't I think I probably should mention it.

[Neo Art]

May I ask, while you clearly have no respect for philosophy as an end in itself, do you see no value in it as a means to an end, that end, of course, being the advancement of mankind?

It's a good question (though, again, REALLY, thread, not about me folks, sorry) I don't find philosophy in and of itself to be particularly worthwhile in producing that end. Lots of things advance mankind. Philosophy I don't find to be one of them.

AT BEST philosophical exercise can be a fun little effort to warm up the mind for actual valuable work, like stretching before lifting, but that's about it.

[Neo Art]

Have I mentioned I also find your persecution complex amusing? If I haven't I think I probably should mention it.

pst, thread STILL not about me!

[Fartsniffage]

and while I'm flatter, I really am,

Yet another poster steamrolled by the juggernaut of NSG.

So sad.

[Neo Art]

and while I'm flatter, I really am,

Yet another poster steamrolled by the juggernaut of NSG.

So sad.

It's the juggernaut, bitch.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Have I mentioned I also find your persecution complex amusing? If I haven't I think I probably should mention it.

pst, thread STILL not about me!

You know perfectly well that every thread is either about Muravyets or you.

[The Norwegian Blue]

and while I'm flatter, I really am,

Yet another poster steamrolled by the juggernaut of NSG.

So sad.

[Rumbria]

May I ask, while you clearly have no respect for philosophy as an end in itself, do you see no value in it as a means to an end, that end, of course, being the advancement of mankind?

It's a good question (though, again, REALLY, thread, not about me folks, sorry) I don't find philosophy in and of itself to be particularly worthwhile in producing that end. Lots of things advance mankind. Philosophy I don't find to be one of them.

AT BEST philosophical exercise can be a fun little effort to warm up the mind for actual valuable work, like stretching before lifting, but that's about it.

Can you give me a few examples of things which produce that end which are purely independent of philosophical thought? I really would appreciate it.

[Conserative Morality]

pst, thread STILL not about me!

Well then, the obvious solution is for you to stop posting in this thread in response to posts that attack your assertion that philosophy is meaningless, correct?

In fact, this all could have ended a while ago had you not continued in responding to our arguments against your position. But the thing is, now that you find your argument hard to defend, you ignore several pages of encouraging this threadjack in order to condemn it.

I really love the hypocrisy here. It's like a soap opera, only with better acting.

[Unhealthy2]

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

Which is why there are philosophers that are nihilists and spend their entire careers engaging in questions COMPLETELY UNRELATED to teleology. It's because philosophy is ONLY about teleology.

[Neo Art]

pst, thread STILL not about me!

You know perfectly well that every thread is either about Muravyets or you.

While I find her signature valuable, I'm loath to replicate it as I'd have to relinquish space on the "wall of bitching about neo art" and really, real estate is tough enough with all the contenders that seem worthy.

[Republicke]

Seems we've reached a consensus that returning to topic is best (feel free to create a parallel or alternative thread though, if you wish to continue, for it's an interesting debate).

Who's everyone's favourite living philosopher/intellectual?

[Ninja Sloths]

I had to think a while before I could choose 5 "top" intellectuals or philosophers. And I'm not entirely comfortable with the ones I chose, either. One of them (Pasteur) I have read literally none of the writings of.

So, you don't have a "Top 5" intellectual/philosopher to nominate?

Gee, how could you have got bogged down for 5 pages being "attacked"? Can't a poster be entirely negative and critical and ignore the thread subject nowdays, without getting attacked?

Funny enough, pointing out that I don't find philosophy to be particularly intellectual an exercise is, in a roundabout way, pretty germain to the topic. My answer is "none" because I don't find philosophical work worth quantifying as "intellectual".

What has somehow happened across the last 5 pages however, is that rather persistant efforts by individuals who must have taken such grave offense, have managed to turn the topic of the conversation from what it was into, somehow, a topic about me.'

As you persist on doing now.

I hate to do this, because I generally thought I could have enough respect for the folks on here, but at this point I find it necessary to remind y'all that I am not the topic of this thread. My particular outlook is not the topic of this thread. My original post was on topic (though admittedly in a roundabout fashion), and since then has been the subject of persistant attempts to turn it all about lil ole me. And while I love all the attention, really I do, I find myself having to say, yet again, that I am not the topic of this thread, and while I'm flatter, I really am, that you all seem so interested in talking about me, it's really not fair to the rest of the forum, k?

No, it's not.

So, you won't nominate five intellectuals who you admire (granted that philosophers aren't your thing).

Why can't you just stop posting to the thread, if you won't address the subject beyond "philosophers suck" ?

It's only about YOU if you want it to be.

[Unhealthy2]

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?

You're here because it amuses you? People's reactions to your statement amuse you, and you like to continue this amusement? So basically, you're trolling?

[Hydesland]

AT BEST philosophical exercise can be a fun little effort to warm up the mind for actual valuable work, like stretching before lifting, but that's about it.

This only works if you conveniently label any philosopher that does contribute something useful as 'theorists', which is circular.

[Neo Art]

In fact, this all could have ended a while ago had you not continued in responding to our arguments against your position.

While it's funny that while you admit that you have been "arguing against my position" which, once again, is NOT the topic of this thread, you somehow...nonsensically posit that the burden is on ME to stop YOUR persistant attempts at threadjacking? That seems kind of odd to me. Should I come over and do your homework for you too? Brush your teeth and feed your dog for you while you're at it?

Do you need me to dress you as well, or do you have that one covered at least?