"Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers

[Neo Art]

Did we just lose posts in this thread?

ehh? no? I deleted one because I realized I was phrasing it badly and suddenly got an email that I needed to address at work so rather than letting it sit badly phrased I deleted it. That's all that I can see. Mostly it was attempting to address the, admittedly poor structure of the phrases, then realizing I wasn't quite doing it right and didn't have the time to try, so didn't try to muddy the waters further.

[Sdaeriji]

Yes, but it isn't, thus the two statements are not equivalent.

And you know this.....how?

Because you didn't establish it within the construct like you did the Shakespearean one.

All blue things are space tigers, this space whale is blue, thus this space whale is a space tiger

All plays in this book are Shakespeare, this play is Shakespeare, thus this play is in this book.

All x are y, z equals x, thus z equals y.

All x are y, z equals x, thus z equals y.

Your original posting wasn't that all blue things are space whales, it was that all space whales are blue. Your original construct was that since these two things are both always blue, they're the same thing.

edit: All space tigers are blue things, all space whales are space tigers, thus space whales are blue things would also be consistent.

[Neo Art]

And you know this.....how?

I don't. Let me clarify, since you did not specify with your axioms that all blue things are space tigers, I cannot logically deduce this given the axioms you provide alone.

The problem becomes, if you stretch logic to the point where it precludes simple assumptions then it too becomes worthless. I have a cat. He's orange. I can pet him and he doesn't consume my hand (despite occassional trying). If I come home and see an orange thing and think "gee, this orange thing resembles my cat, and my cat doesn't devour my hand, so I think I can safely pet it, but since I don't know that the entire set of "orange things that live in my apartment and looks like my cat" doesn't FOR A FACT contain something that WILL eat my hand if I try to pet it, then it would be illogical to assume without perfect knowledge of the set that this orange thing won't actually eat me", which basically, taken to the extreme, is exactly what you're saying, then I've just logiced myself into not getting out of bed in the morning because just because I didn't slip through the floor and into hell on the roughly 10 THOUSAND other days I've gotten out of bed in the morning, doesn't mean THIS time I won't.

When in reality I'm going to come home, pet my damned cat, and make some dinner. Is it a technically illogical assumption? Based on strict definitions, perhaps. Does logic do me a damned bit of good in that situation? no, not in the slightest.

Logic, to be worthwhile, has to be practical. We can argue all day whether it's a logical assumption, and under your definition perhaps it isn't. That makes your definition equally as worthless because it provides absolutely 0 guideance or pragmatic predictions.

[Unhealthy2]

Logic, to be worthwhile, has to be practical. We can argue all day whether it's a logical assumption, and under your definition perhaps it isn't. That makes your definition equally as worthless because it provides absolutely 0 guideance or pragmatic predictions.

The problem is that, strictly speaking, logic is ONLY about the evaluation of arguments. Questions about whether input premises are true or not are not the subject of logic, but rather the subject of epistemology, which is apparently not philosophy under your strange definitions, since it's often useful to consider. Everything that is true MUST be describable by a logically consistent set of statements, but not everything describable by a logically consistent set of statements is true.

[Bokaya]

Anyone else fancy posting something on-topic? Anoyne at all?

[Risottia]

I would say the top people that have influenced my life and thinking the most are:

1. Jesus
2. All my ex-girlsfriends combined
3. Jostein Gaarder
4. Mark Hammons
5. Tim Drake
6. Brian Tomb
Not all of them are/were philosophers

And none of them has taught you the difference between "top" and "top 5"...

hint:

Newton, Riemann, Weierstrass, Russell, Turing, Godel, Einstein, Dirac, Feynman
That's a top 5, for sufficiently high values of 5.

THAT's how you do it.
(btw, Unhealthy, no Cantor? No Frege? No Lobachevskij? )

[St George of England]

Charlie Brown
Yogi Bear
Winnie the Pooh.

[The Archregimancy]

I'll bite, if only to attempt to gently nudge the thread back on-topic <offers polite mod cough>, but only on condition that one of my five is a joint nomination of three, that it's understood that these are personal influences rather than an argument on part that these have some form of universal applicability in some form of standardised canon, that 'intellectuals' can be more broadly conceived than 'philosophers', and that I'd almost certainly come up with a different list next week.

In no particular order, this week's top five are:

Sir Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul (aka V.S. Naipaul)

James Deetz

Origen

Alasdair Gray (though not for the Scottish nationalism)

The Cappadocian Fathers

[Czardas]

Well, I was gonna start with "throw hysterical hyperbole laden hissy fit on the internet" but I see you got that one covered pretty well enough by yourself.

[...]
Some people enjoy thinking. Perhaps that makes you jealous ?

[...] 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[...]

[...]
You are being a whiny little bitch right now, and this kind of conduct really is beneath you. Grow a pair and bow out.

[...] 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?

These posts are all personal attacks. Please avoid doing this kind of thing or you shall receive warnings.

[...] My original post was on topic (though admittedly in a roundabout fashion), [...]

"Roundabout fashion", nothing. Your post was a tangent. This thread is not for discussing the merits of philosophy itself; it is for discussing the merits of particular philosophers. The discussion you have prompted and encouraged (along with Conserative Morality, Unhealthy2 and one or two others) is a threadjack -- I would suggest taking it elsewhere.

Further action may be taken once I consult with other mods on a few points, btw. Just an advance warning. There's nothing very severe in here, but a few people may need to be bumped up to redtexts depending on history etc.

[Neo Art]

Let me make sure I understand something. "Whiny little bitch" isn't severe?

[Farnhamia]

As Arch says, ask me next week and I'll probably have a different answer, but today ...

- Plato, for the Socratic dialogue and the idea that things and people should be questioned

- Immanuel Kant, though I don't completely understand him, but the moral philosophy is appealing

- Julius Henry Marx, for reasons that should be obvious

Meh, all you get is three.

[Czardas]

Let me make sure I understand something. "Whiny little bitch" isn't severe?

Due to the emphasis on conduct placed by the second clause, I interpreted the statement as "you're acting like a whiny little bitch" -- which is certainly a flame, but not, I think, one serious enough to merit an official warning. Hence why I preferred to merely reprimand the user in question rather than demeriting him.

I do, however, wish to discuss this thread further with the other mods, and one of us will update with any alterations. A second look at some of the posts herein may be warranted.

[Bokaya]

Oh! The mods are out in strength... it's a rare and captivating, yet somehow sinister sight, like watching a feeding frenzy of sharks...

[Tokyoni]

Not sure I can put a hierarchical ranking, so I'll do chronological instead (*chronological in terms of their influence on me that is...).

Plato/Socrates - Mainly for forming the embryo of the philosophy of Positivism, to which I now hold to about as strongly as is humanly possible.

Karl Marx - For analyzing the development and progression of society, faults with the exploitation in the present system, and highlighting the methodology by which the oppressed proletariat may liberate itself from exploitation.

Fanon - Expanding on the previous, he instated in my mind the need for ARMED struggle against capitalism/imperialism and the theoretical framework I presently hold to that capitalism may only be destroyed via obstructing and destroying imperialism. (And yes by definition this borrows from Lenin's theoretical work as well).

Kim Il-Sung - For further codifying this line of thought, as well as highlighting the proper relations between the theory and practice, intellectuals and workers in the quest to oppose imperialism, promote self-determination, and end the exploitation of capitalism.

Gautama Buddha - Yes, it may sound odd. Particularly as I'm not a Buddhist per se in terms of cosmology. But I *really* like the ethical systems, and in a lot of ways it seems DIRECTLY parallel to if not inter-related with the ideas of the above three mentioned.

[Clagen]

I stopped reading when I saw Ayn Rand.

[Risottia]

Charlie Brown
Yogi Bear
Winnie the Pooh.

But... but... they're all YANKS!

[St George of England]

Charlie Brown
Yogi Bear
Winnie the Pooh.

But... but... they're all YANKS!

Que?

[Rambhutan]

But... but... they're all YANKS!

Que?

I blame Disney

[North Suran]

Kim Il-Sung - For further codifying this line of thought, as well as highlighting the proper relations between the theory and practice, intellectuals and workers in the quest to oppose imperialism, promote self-determination, and end the exploitation of capitalism.

There's North Korean apologism, and then there's claiming that Kim Il-Sung was a philosopher.

[Georgism]

There's North Korean apologism, and then there's claiming that Kim Il-Sung was a philosopher.

Everyone's a philosopher.

[Free Soviets]

the names that have come up repeatedly are sort of interesting. nietzsche, aristotle, hobbes, wittgenstein...

[Ordo Drakul]

Let's see if I can get to five:
1) Niccolo Macchiavelli-comedian and satirist, his The Prince drips sarcasm and wisdom in equal amounts. I venture to say that those who intend to vote should read The Prince and those who intend to hold office should memorize it.

2)Lao-tzu-again, humor and wisdom mix beautifully in this man. While his philosophy is basically "So What?", his commentaries are succinct enough to be placed in an editorial cartoon. My favorite of the Chinese philosphers.

3)Arius-although he did not originate his beliefs, he defended them so eloquently that, incensed and at a loss for words, Nicholaus of Myra slapped him square across the face. Anyone who can piss Santa off enough to get bitch-slapped in public belongs on my top 5.

4)The Marquis de Sade-the only thinker of the Enlightenment to see where that philosophy would lead, then rode that train all the way to Hell with both eyes open. Having seen the impact of the Enlightenment, I can only say the Divine Marquis definately had an optimistic view of human nature.

5)Ronald Reagan-While not the brightest President (Jeffersion sewed that one up early then wrecked the curve) nor the most quotable (I swear 95% of all Presidential quotes come from Lincoln-when did he have time to conduct the war?), Reagan was the last president to have faith in the American People. His wit and wisdom are as profound as any philosopher, and it is a pity that his views did not carry past his administration, even among his own party.

[Treval]

1. John Stewart Mills

2. John Locke

3. Immanuel Kant

That's all I can think of that had a major influence on my life. I just...don't spend most of my time reading philosophy

[North Suran]

Let's see if I can get to five:
1) Niccolo Macchiavelli-comedian and satirist, his The Prince drips sarcasm and wisdom in equal amounts. I venture to say that those who intend to vote should read The Prince and those who intend to hold office should memorize it.

You do realise that "The Prince as satire" is revisionist horse manure peddled by Machiavelli followers who want to distance themselves from the negative connotations of the term "Machiavellian"? The Prince is a straight political treatise. I personally feel attempts to rehabilitate it as a "satire" are pointless examples of Parody Retcon, since there is nothing wrong with the Realpolitik that Machiavelli advocates.

[Bokaya]

Too true, too true. I love machiavelli for what he is, not what a bunch of silly people think he should be, though his Meditations are far more useful to us in day to day life than Il Principe. Anyway, I do like him, but he didn't make the list.