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.
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.
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.
OK... "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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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! LOL!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was trying to meet you at your lower level of intellect so you'd understand. 'Retard' means - to delay the progress of. Ain't that what the hell is going on here? Is your term 'ignorant' that much better? Ha-ha-ha!
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.
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...
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.
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 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...
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...
The naturalist's perspective that life could come from non-life, and intelligent life from non-intelligent life is so simplistic as to defy logic and reason. The nature of life and intelliegnce is so complex for them to...