Who do you think is the best philosopher of all time and what makes them the best?
among the Renaissance philosopher I like Irish philosopher george Berkeley
I write a hub about him
He is best known for his motto, esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived. He was in fact an idealist in that he stated that "everything that exists is either a mind or depends for its existence upon a mind." he was also a non-materialist philosopher meaning -- for him matter does not exist.
Thanks. What do you think is the main importance of philosophy and what do you think enables one philosopher to see something in more depth than the other?
they philosophize about the very basic of everything boils down to existence and meaning of life
Do you think the best philsophers are the ones that relate best with nature?
maybe the more logic oriented philosopher like Bertrand russell wittgenstein et al and the positivist philosphers not the Renaissance philosphers who are more into the philosophy of the existence of GOD
I think I lean more to siding with the logic oriented ones. I think the ones that speak of God possibly do more harm to philosophy than good in the fact that many place limits on what a person can know or learn based on limits set by a God. I also think the many that talked about God were biased to certain idealogies and were not open minded to those that went against the idea of a God.
George is the Man...R.I.P.
My vote would be for John Locke. Why? Because of his LIBERAL ideas; The U.S. is now a country. His writings were used to create the Declaration of Independence, not to mention his philosophy of "Tabula Rosa", or "blank slate" is what inspired the Deist movement that led to the Enlightenment in addition to modern agnosticism.
People he inspired other than myself:
Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, The Adam's, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton to name just a few.
I like the down-to-earth, folksy types like Mark Twain and Will Rogers.
There is no need to justify Plato being at the top of the list.. he is PLATO
It's like explaining why the Sun is so hot.. it's because it's the SUN
This is not a very logical reason to think he is the best. You could just like him because he was one of the earliest or because he has a cool name.
Would you be considering if my reply is or isn't logical if it were not for the groudwork laid down by Plato?
lol Good point, probably not. But, this doesn't mean he or you are the most logical.
He's dead now.. so I vote for me as being the most logical
Not that logical. You still haven't given a logical reason that you think he is the best. lol
I think it is a greater accomplishment to lay the foundation of a great building where there was once wilderness, than to add a second story to an existing structure.
lol What does that have to do with you being logical? You think it's better to have others being better at something you defined? I think it's an embarassment.
Because you read Plato, you are better than Plato?
"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours." Sir Isaac Newton
Plato is a giant... most others are just "shoulder-riders" in comparison
lol So you think anyone that understands things better than Plato is a shoulder rider because of someones opinion with no logical evidence that he is a giant? You think Plato is beyond criticism?
Wasn't Plato boosted up by riding on Socrates shoulders?
we only know socrates through plato as plato was his pupil.
which I'm sure this is what you meant.
I admire Socrates too, but i have a hunch that there is more of Plato in what he Plato wrote than there is Socrates... even if the dialogue was attributed to Socrates. There is no way of confirming that, obviously.
Either way, can you just imagine the brainpower in a such a small group... and then add Aristotle on top of that.
It's like Italy during Renaissance and art
I'm with you Greek One. Plato rocks because his reasoning was sound and he wasn't as corrupted by the modern world as we are now.
He laid a good foundation for every other would be philosopher to play in. I'd love to have been a student of Plato, that would be awesome.
Thanks for posting, but you are supposed to give reasons why you like them and think they are the best. . Thanks.
I would have to say Homer. His bacon theories are the basis modern breakfastological thinking.
he is passionate and stands behind ever word he write.
Greek Oneposted 2 minutes agoin reply to this
I didnt say "anyone".
Are you denying that Plato is a giant?
You define giant any way you like.. .
I think someone who helped lay the foundation of all philosophical thought in the Western world classifies as a giant.
Are you denying Plato's impact? Are you saying that admiring such a legacy it isn't logical?
That is another opinion. "Everyone" layed the groundwork for philosophical thought. One man does not get credit for teaching everyone how to think. Everyone teaches themselves how to think. He simply put rules and formulation to thinking and gave it terms. I do agree that he is one of the biggest names and founders in adding definitions to philosophy.
May be one of problems with the legacy of Plato - along with his slant on things that western thinking builds on (as you are saying) is the fact that he was a slave owning, boy bonking, time on his hands, rich git. This does not reduce his status as a thinker, or recorder of other's thinking whichever, but it does bring into question the direction he took us in.
don't get me wrong, i'm not saying he was a nice guy lol
Great points china. He also seemed to be a dualist. Good and evil are not absolute, any logical mind should have been able to figure this out. Someone that is evil may not always be evil and someone that is good may not always be good meaning they possibly don't exist. I don't have an understanding of how someone can be a believer of things that can't be defined as absolute.
maybe not quite accurate, good and evil are subjective and the line is that everything is only subjective. Meaning is only what it means to you relative to the other, proof and what we think is 'right' or 'wrong' is only consensus, ie what a lot of people agree on.
This means there is no objective truth, as Nietsche wrote, 'god is dead' when he came to this conclusion.
I agree. Like asking who is the best philosopher is subjective and has no absolute answer.
I think I should have rephrased the question to who is the most honest philosopher with the least contradictions?
Or "Which Philosopher is the most relevant in todays modern world?"
plato and aristotle are the giants. logic, reason and free thought. even thoreau said, there are no more philosophers, only people who philosophize. and he probably is my favorite.
thank you. RebekahELLE !!
(plus, lets not forget he was a handsome Greek man)
those writers challenged me to think when I was in college. it was like a whole new world.
greek, I'm surrounded by them. both of my sons have greek girlfriends. soon I will have a very big family of greek in-laws!
yes, they are handsome men, those greeks.
hey, I believe it stormryder. they look at life from where they are, no pretense.
Best Philosopher...It's gotta be that homeless guy at the corner of 15th & Harney
Don't know his real name?? We just call him "Dirty Pete"
The man is amazing...or insane???
Thales (of Miletus) was the first known Greek philosopher (634 B.C. to 546 B.C.).
For him to have had the ideas he had, at that time would be as mind blowing George Lucas going back in time with all his Lucasfilm lackeys and gear and equipment to 1905 and screening Episode III.
(I picked 1905 because it's 100 years before Episode III was released, which was the first film to be shot entirely on digital cameras and also it was one year before the FIRST full length feature film (albeit silent, which they all were) was made. Sound wouldn't be added to film for about another 20 years.)
DS, I do remember reading your hub about Thales, I did not know about him. you have a great set of hubs about the greek philosophers, maybe some here don't know about. http://hubpages.com/hub/thales-of-miletus
marine, what is absolute?
Maybe everything, maybe nothing, that is also subjective.
I was just asking in reference to your statement about 'not understanding how people can believe in something that is not absoulte.' we all do. is god absolute? a body? a cloud? a thought?
nice topic, but I must get to work. enjoy the day.
I think the idea of god is one of the biggest reasons why there may be no absolutes.
We are the illusion of a design and creation with no logical way or evidence to define a designer or creator in a balance of chaos and nonrandomness. lol
The idea of God IS impossible because by definition it must be absolute - and there is no such thing. We have this idea just because we want things to be certain and absolute - we want to have the certainty we had in life when we were held tight on Dad's lap looking at Mum, surrounded by love and security, so we imagine a deity who has the ability to make us feel like this so that everything is ok around us. Growing up is to reject this idea and stand on our own feet and surround ourselves with love and security - be the Dad, overcome the Oedipal idea of a god. Some people think they surround themselves with love and security by being their god, being religious, others try to make wealth their security and love.
I still think it is 'everything' and 'nothing' that are absolute.
I really don't believe that there is a "best" philosopher of all time. That is like trying to answer the question of who is the best looking woman of all time. However, what I will answer is the question of who is my favorite philosopeher? I would have to answer Socrates. He not only was humble in saying that "I know nothing". He was ethical, logical, mystical, strong, and a downright decent guy. I admire him both for his mind and for his character and for his mysticism.
Socrates, he managed to argue himself into a death penalty and then commited suicide to thwart his enemies, you've got to admire the guy. Or the dude who lived in a bath, can't remember his name but he came after Socrates. Mad as a snake but brilliant mind.
It may be partially due to personal bias, but to me, it was Bruce Lee. I've never been impressed more...by anyone else, when it comes to philosophy - as in "way of life." Although, he was also a pretty bad-ass martial artist, as well. Haaaaay Yaaaaa!
Get off this one and over to the other one. You have some catching up to do.
Ahh man, I was about to run to the ATM machine for some cash.
Besides, I don't think that forum invites imagination or creative thoughts anymore; it seems to only consist of book quotes & BS.
I don't know, I may pop my ass back over there, a little later on, though.
Thanks for the invite, by the way.
Since philosophy is an ideology, it makes it a way of thinking.
I would have to say I agree with many different philosophical thinking, but none are the one basis for our way of life.
All of them encompassed together is the understanding we as human need to understand. Those that do not work or are dismissed by others, should be discredited, as it is and not continued to be maintained.
The best philosopher isn't a philosopher at all. It would be the one person who best understood life, and many of it's wonderful things it offers to one, should they be open to it.
Albert Einstein would be the person to understand. His way of thinking is the most revolutionary style and doesn't support the "GOD" concept others perceive it to be.
Don't ya think the best philosophy is "self-philosophy" through experience? Sure, some people need guidance (trust me, I've seen many) but in the end, it is "self truth" that means the most.
Self-truth? as you mention is a misconception, when talking about philosophy and it's correlation with all of humanity.
Truth is truth. It's not an individual perception/perspective. Just because you don't know the truth and believe you have truth, you are only fooling yourself.
There are plenty of reasons for people to not understand and one would be the character trait of ignorance.
As for people needing guidance- sure almost everyone needs some sort of guidance, but that guidance is found within and not from external source. The influences of others is one of the huge problems of humanity, as it stands today.
Everyone sees everyone or at least a huge majority of them abusing, harming and manipulating, the uneducated or uninformed, into doing whatever the hell they want and getting away with it.
It's completely out of control and needs a new way of thinking.
Individuals vary from one to the next. Philosophy is a "way of life" to an individual or to groups; but, it is not definite and is damn sure not universal. Self-truth is about all you can hope for, as nobody lives within you but you...that is, unless you get into the ones who are into all that religious crap.
Are you dense? Nothing like pointing out the obvious.
Philosophy is based on an ideology, reinforced by imagination/knowledge/experience, all wrapped into one. A philosophy can be used as a "way of life"...but in the end of the day, it's a way of thinking. And, since it's a way of thinking, it can be universal for all of humanity.
I'm not into the religious crap/garbage. Self-truth I said doesn't exist, it's a misconception thought process.
Truth is truth. It consists/exists, regardless of whether or not you believe it. It is contained in all the things we've either created/discovered and learned.
If you're having a problem seeking the truth about something, then how you know when you find it? You know, when it is commonly understood as fact/truth.
Dense? Are you?
It is preposterous to think philosophy can be universal.
Even laws of Physics are limited to certain aspects; hence forth the idea that they should be called Earth Physics.
When you mention truth as absolute, it reminds me of how the bogus religions claim a "universal truth"...Ha-ha!
Change of terms: "Self-Philosophy" is the best anyone can hope for, everything else is dependent on other quacks.
Not really - truth is subjective not universal. What you describe is subjective to whoever creates/discovers/learns
Thanks for clearing that up for him, China man.
You're doing your best to understand it. That I can see, but don't worry your limited/skewed view, stop you from getting informed.
It's obvious, you've never been able to understand or even grasp the original concept to begin with. Which, I am sure you don't even know the original concept, which I am talking about.
Truth is not the original concept I am talking about, just in case, your limited/skewed view thought so.
And, if I decide to tell you what it is that your missing or not understanding, then it would most likely dismissed as nonsense. Then again, what else be new. Ignorance is bliss to most and a real comfort.
All of this "skewed" talk sounds like a twisted pretzle of ignorance.
I hope China Man replies back to this hogwash of yours... Just a thought.
Thank you for your condescension, but attacking me for no apparent reason does not make your case. You are an amateur philosopher making amateur mistakes and I try to keep out of it normally - but when you make a clear mistake it is useful to you to have it pointed up - this is called discussion. If you don't agree you only have to say so, or tell me why.
This is called communication and in that you are correct that mis-communication is a problem. External sources are the society around you and not listening to the people around you is a mental illness.
When everyone else appears to be mad, then it is time to look at yourself. This quote could have been anyone from Freud to Woody Allen.
So you call everyone a quack, since they disagree with you.
How nice of you.
Not at all, but they are out there...
Just those who you selectively choose, by using your subjective view.
So much for non-bias understanding. How nice of you.
Nope; some people can't even wipe their own ass properly. What? Am I going to psycho-analyze retards now?
Yes, there are plenty of people who are completely ignorant in more aspects of life than others.
Just your pathetic use of the word "retards" goes to show you know nothing. And, I'll leave it at that.
Apparently even the word "philosophy" seems to escape your limited/skewed view.
Thank you for your input, but much like the religious zealots you complain about, your own ignorance is astounding, to say the least of it.
I did write a Hub on Ignorance, should care to read it. It might help you figure out what you're doing wrong.
Just a thought.
I take those words as a defensive compliment, nothing more.
I'm far from ignorant.
Anyone who is semi-aware, would know you are displaying limited views of perspective, not me.
I often disrespect and insult, but out of my own personal entertainment upon the learning levels of existence.
You have no idea what I know or what I've studied or what I'm aware of.
Your own assumption of me can make your prior opinions dive into the abyss of ignorance, but not me.
Unlike you, I don't underestimate the powers of the universe.
I can see why.
If you were, then we would not be having a problem to communicate.
Limited? Limited is your vision and the vision of many who are watching this conversation take place and some will most likely jump in to say something sooner or later. However, you use more of your subjective view in your statements and everything else you do, without viewing something objectively. Thus, you error. Hence, creates your ignorance or refusal to be open minded.
Well then I guess you have a lot more to learn, just like so many others.
Again, you demonstrate your inability to understand. It is necessary for me to understand what you've studied or what you think you know.
I don't underestimate the powers of the universe, and for you to make such a ridiculous statement, just goes to show, what I've been saying.
As for me jumping to an assumption about you. I didn't jump to any assumption, I simply used your own words against you and you unknowingly help me prove a point, that you haven't a clue.
But, thank you for your time.
This I would say is the heart of the difference. If one believes that everything is subjective - then there is no objective of any kind.
Objectivity is a prerequisite of god, and if you think there is a god then you think objectivity is possible - I and some others who you are arguing with think there is no such thing as objectivity and so there is no god.
Your own assumption brought you this far.
I HOPE others see this.
We've already had one person "jump in" and he was on my side.
Let the others come...
I've always claimed open-mindedness. I'll use your words against you: Your twisted as in 'skewed'...Ha-ha! You're funny...
what about this argument makes people look bad - the only bad is your inane pointless comment - again
Dime store philosophers trying to one-up each other is like a chorus made up of people who can't sing but who ape all the moves and affectations of people who can.
I'm at least a "dollar store" philosopher, so that is currently better than my "dime store" opposition. What do you think?
You have no idea of my qualifications or the quality of my philosophy and clearly no understanding of the subject yourself - I can't speak for anyone else here but I respect their points of view as we all struggle to find some meaning - like everyone from the first monkey that had a thought from Plato through to Kant, Einstein, the likes of Derrida and the Dalai Lhama. Then back to monkeys who avoid any meaning and so just make noises about others.
"clearly no understanding of the subject yourself "
There you go again...
dean ray koontz because he always adds humor to everything he thinks about. very cool what he says about how to greet an alien(from space) properly. he just knows how to take such serious questions and make the most hillarious solutions.
I'm starting to like myself as a philosopher. Why? Because I make allot of sense to me
by Alem Belton 6 years ago
After an internal debate between science and philosophy I am leaning towards an answer of yes. This is due to the fact that the scientific explanation for the existence of life is greatly flawed, which leaves only one other possible solution. I usually only believe things that can be proven but...
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
I would say so, as it is logical to assume that the "Force of God" is infused in both individuals and systems of nature. Apparently, God is involved on both the microcosmic level and the macrocosmic level in that all of nature reveals an interconnectedness and interdependence. Let's call...
by sibtain bukhari 4 years ago
There is no scientific and logical evidence of self existence of universe, therefore,only logical conclusion is the creator of universe not proving its self existence .
by Richard VanIngram 8 years ago
The short answer is, "Yes."Should he or she, though?My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes." Can I understand why some or many rational individuals would have difficulty with the very notion of believing in any God? Again,...
by Billie Kelpin 21 months ago
Who are the modern day equivalents of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Kant, Hume, Descartes, etc ?Who are the thinkers, in or out of academia, who are continuing to explore the meaning of our existence? Religions seem satisfied they have found the answers. However, given new technology in...
by amine sehibi 3 years ago
can anyone, show me the evidence that enables the modern science to disprove the existence of God.Of course if the modern science is able to disprove his existences .
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|