"Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers

by **Neo Art** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:33 pm

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII wrote:What did Avatar physically accomplish, other than kill a couple furries?

That alone earns James Cameron a fucking medal.

But that alone is the problem with philosophy in that it tries to quantify "accomplishment". What's it all MEAN? Why are we HERE? What's our PURPOSE?

It's fundamentally silly, it means nothing, we're here for no reason, and we have no purpose. The subject is useless because the questions are pointless.

by **Kruplyan** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:33 pm

In no particular order:

Sigmund Freud, Augustine of Hippo, Sir Issac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, and someone I can't get off the top of my head right now...

by **The Merchant Republics** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:36 pm

1) Ayn Rand

2) John Locke

3) Aristotle

4) Rothbard

5) Myself :lol:

I wish I was more widely read though, I've only read a couple of books, even by the authors that I put in my top-five, and I've read very little of their contrary authors.

by **Big Jim P** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:38 pm

In no particular order (with one exception):

Myself
Nietzsche
LaVey
Lincoln
Ozzy.

by **Bodegraven** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:42 pm

1) Socrates

2)Kant

3) Aristotle

4) Freud

5)Sartre

by **Trotskylvania** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:43 pm

Neo Art wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote:Also, why is the examination of one's life and actions, or the actions and life of humanity in general so terrible?

because it accomplishes nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a philosophical work and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at starbucks.

Says you.

I've found that a lot of people become more virtuous, reflective and more complete human beings through the study of philosophy.

by **Ninja Sloths** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:43 pm

Neo Art wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote:Of course, the same goes for artists, novelists, and the sort. They don't contribute anything REAL to this world.

Not at all, entertainment has considerable value.

Then you should credit all philosophers with the same value, because their "subjective clap-trap" is entertainment to some people.

Some people enjoy thinking. Perhaps that makes you jealous ?

by **Trotskylvania** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:46 pm

Neo Art wrote:
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII wrote:What did Avatar physically accomplish, other than kill a couple furries?

That alone earns James Cameron a fucking medal.

But that alone is the problem with philosophy in that it tries to quantify "accomplishment". What's it all MEAN? Why are we HERE? What's our PURPOSE?

It's fundamentally silly, it means nothing, we're here for no reason, and we have no purpose. The subject is useless because the questions are pointless.

You do realize, that as a lawyer, your entire profession is basically applied philosophy, right?

by **Free Soviets** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:46 pm

Neo Art wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, a philosophical work and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at starbucks.

i dunno man. philosophy pays me rather well for very little work...

by **Caninope** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:48 pm

Unhealthy2 wrote:Newton, Riemann, Weierstrass, Russell, Turing, Godel, Einstein, Dirac, Feynman

That's a top 5, for sufficiently high values of 5.

Must be doing the upper limit of the area underneath a curve.

by **Conserative Morality** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:49 pm

Neo Art wrote:because it accomplishes nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a philosophical work and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at starbucks.

Like I said, it entertains people to contemplate meaning.

by **Conserative Morality** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:50 pm

Neo Art wrote:That alone earns James Cameron a fucking medal.

But that alone is the problem with philosophy in that it tries to quantify "accomplishment". What's it all MEAN? Why are we HERE? What's our PURPOSE?

It's fundamentally silly, it means nothing, we're here for no reason, and we have no purpose. The subject is useless because the questions are pointless.

You do realize that that, in and of itself, is a philosophical statement, right?

by **Conserative Morality** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:51 pm

New Nicksyllvania wrote:Education is not for the purposes of something as dull and callous as work, education is for the sake of education.

Plebeians such as yourself who care only about the monetary aspects of eduction are the cancer that is killing the traditional institution of Universities as social areas of the intellectual elite.

I find myself in agreement with you, NN. :blink:

by **Trotskylvania** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:51 pm

At least the pretentious Pure Sciences Brigade hasn't showed up yet.

It troubles me how little modern higher education teaches science majors the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge and the scientific method.

by **Neo Art** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:55 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:
Neo Art wrote:
because it accomplishes nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a philosophical work and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at starbucks.

Says you.

Well....yes. I'm fairly certain I haven't been posessed, so I'm pretty sure that the words I've typed were in fact me saying it.

by **Neo Art** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:56 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:
Neo Art wrote:
That alone earns James Cameron a fucking medal.

But that alone is the problem with philosophy in that it tries to quantify "accomplishment". What's it all MEAN? Why are we HERE? What's our PURPOSE?

It's fundamentally silly, it means nothing, we're here for no reason, and we have no purpose. The subject is useless because the questions are pointless.

You do realize, that as a lawyer, your entire profession is basically applied philosophy, right?

No, my entire profession is applied law. The *cough* "philosophical" underpinnings of the law is of no concern to me, it is what it is.

by **Neo Art** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:57 pm

Ninja Sloths wrote:Some people enjoy thinking.

Shame some of them can't find anything worthwhile to think about.

Perhaps that makes you jealous ?

are...are you going to banish me from the intellectual elite too? Please don't! I'll be good, I promise!

by **Unhealthy2** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:57 pm

Caninope wrote:Must be doing the upper limit of the area underneath a curve.

In order to fundamentally establish the limits of mathematical computation and proof for a classical object accelerating through a curved quantum space-time.

by **Unhealthy2** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:59 pm

Neo Art wrote:Shame some of them can't find anything worthwhile to think about.

And without being self-defeating and hypocritically thinking philosophically, how do you establish what is and isn't worthwhile to think about?

by **Hydesland** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:59 pm

Neo Art wrote:If philosophers were smart they wouldn't waste their time on such meaningless drivel that is "philosophy"

Uhuh, I've been reading some articles on jurisprudence recently, and if philosophers like to waste time on meaningless drivel, then law professors love to waste time on highly limited and more amateur meaningless drivel based upon the meaningless drivel of philosophers.

by **Neo Art** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:00 pm

Unhealthy2 wrote:
Neo Art wrote:Shame some of them can't find anything worthwhile to think about.

And without being self-defeating and hypocritically thinking philosophically, how do you establish what is and isn't worthwhile to think about?

By what I find worthwhile.

Seriously, why is this a hard concept?

by **Neo Art** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:00 pm

Hydesland wrote:
Neo Art wrote:If philosophers were smart they wouldn't waste their time on such meaningless drivel that is "philosophy"

Uhuh, I've been reading some articles on jurisprudence recently, and if philosophers like to waste time on meaningless drivel, then law professors love to waste time on highly limited and more amateur meaningless drivel based upon the meaningless drivel of philosophers.

If you want to discover teaching methods of law professors I suggest less "reading articles" and more going to lawschool. Having done that myself, I find little value in discussing the hypothetical articles some hypothetical person wrote about hypothetical professor's hypothetical methods.

by **Unhealthy2** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:02 pm

Neo Art wrote:By what I find worthwhile.

Seriously, why is this a hard concept?

So are you the arbiter of what is and is not worthwhile?

Nonetheless, the very idea that what is and is not worthwhile is based on your opinion is, itself, a philosophical notion, absurd though it may be.

Thus, you have failed to answer my challenge.

by **Hydesland** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:02 pm

[quote="Neo Art";p="4503716"']
No, my entire profession is applied law. The *cough* "philosophical" underpinnings of the law is of no concern to me, it is what it is.[/quote]

On the other hand, the philosophical underpinnings of mathematics and theoretical physics are of serious concern to many highly accomplished mathematicians and physicists, are they not worthwhile things? Likewise, in social sciences, particularly economics, the philosophy of science, of epistemology relating to what can be inferred for instance from statistical data, is of huge concern, since it's important to assess what we can and cannot know in these fields, which raises serious philosophical concerns.

by **Conserative Morality** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:02 pm

Neo Art wrote:By what I find worthwhile.

Seriously, why is this a hard concept?

Deciding what is and is not worthwhile is philosophical.

"Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers

Who is online