Who Is Your Favorite Philosopher?

Comte De Maistre

[ComtedeMaistre]

That was the question that George W. was asked in the 2000 campaign. Unfortunately, the questioner failed to provide a precise definition of how to define a philosopher.

A useful definition of a philosopher is anybody who has ever written a book on ideas. Anybody. Whether he is an economist, theologian, politician, mathematician, soldier, boxer, musician, historian, artist, psychologist, sociologist, anthropologist, biologist, physicist, athlete, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, I do recognize Yogi Berra as a notable philosopher. Even Barry Goldwater, notwithstanding the fact that his book, "Conscience of a Conservative" was ghost-written for him.

Certainly, if some of the well-read freepers know of philosophers noted for conservative ideas, their contributions are certainly welcome.

For my part, my favorite philosopher is the anti-enlightenment thinker, Joseph de Maistre (also known as Comte de Maistre). I regard him as the most authentic conservative intellectual of all time. Reading his works made me realize how the spread of moral relativism can endanger civilization.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Jesus Christ is God, and God is God, not a philosopher. So I'll go with Kant for general philosophy, and Madison and Hamilton for political philosophy.

[Rudder]

Pogo

[jocon307]

LOL, how wonderful to see this here!

Well, and fondly, do I remember dragging my brother, who was a bona fide philosophy major from the University of Chicago (God alone knows how that was accomplished!), into the room to help me and my best friend get those philosophers' names right, so we could sing along.

As I just have! As I so often do! A thrilling tune, thrilling!

Oh, thanks MOM, you've really brightened my day!

My fave philosoph? Gotta say C.S. Lewis.

Or maybe Herr Budweiser, yeah, him too!

[Greg Packer]

Dolly Parton

[Greg Packer]

. . . for two reasons.

[PMCarey]

Gilbert Chesterton

[nothingnew]

Soupy Sales, without question.

FMCDH

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>>According to your "useful definition" of a philosopher, neither Socrates nor Jesus qualifies, since neither ever wrote a book or treatise that we know of. And yet, both of these qualify as philosophers of the first rank.<<<<

But their ideas were written down. That makes them philosophers.

That is why in my post, I mentioned Barry Goldwater, whose ideas were ghost-written by Bozell.

>>>Again, Buddha does not qualify<<<

Buddhas teachings have been written down. He would qualify.

>>>But, any Tom, Dick, or Harry who wrote a children's book does!?!<<<

I specifically excluded authors of children's books, from being mentioned as philosophers.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Carey, is it just a coincidence that you named Chesterton right after Packer mentioned Dolly Parton? : )

[freedumb2003]

>>Robert Heinlein <<

Very interesting answer. I was saddened by his increased impatience as he got older. His characters got more Perfect and more intolerant of anyone who couldn't tell a zygote from a gamete.

Even Laz Long probably couldn't measure up to what RAH expected from humanity.

But his obesrvations - "Notebook" , both pithy and precise, were certainly food for thought.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>>Dolly Parton<<<

>>for two reasons<<

Books, not boobs, define a philosopher.

[Mary-Bayou]

Mark Twain!!

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Albert Camus.

Read "The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt". It will make you THINK as you have never thought before. You will have hundreds of thoughts coursing through your mind as you read it. Have a notebook nearby, so that you can jot down every thought.

[Iwo Jima]

Ayn Rand. Nobody else comes close.

[CatoRenasci]

Ah, yes. The entire philosophy department of the university of wallawaroo! All Bruces. No Pooftahs!

on a more serious note: John Locke for the Essay concerning Human Understanding and the Essays on Civil Government; F.W. Nietzsche for his boldness and absolutely magnificent German prose.

It is virtually inconceivable to me that anyone could seriously admire a reactionary such as Joseph deMaistre.

[gitmo]

1. Jesus
2. CS Lewis
3. Phyllis Schlafly
4. Calvin and Hobbes

[jwalsh07]

Dubya was right, it is undeniably Jesus of Nazareth.

[Arkinsaw]

Marx.................Harpo that is.

[Alberta's Child]

Vince Lombardi

[Hardcorps]

The author of Ecclesiastes. Some say Solomon

[Ichneumon]

[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Wasn't he the moron who was conned by the whole "Piltdown Man" hoax?]

Lots of smart people were conned by the Piltdown hoax.

It should be noted that although creationists looking for an excuse to bash paleontologists sometimes describe the Piltdown hoax as nothing but a "human skull put together with an orangutan jaw" (the implication being that it should have been obvious to anyone), the truth of the matter is that whoever the hoaxer was (and there are several prime suspects), they went through a lot of trouble (and used a lot of expertise) to make the fake as convincing as possible.

For example, they had used a file to reshape the teeth and some of the bones to remove tell-tale modern features (in a way to more convincingly match ancient bone discoveries), and used a multi-step chemical process to artificially "age" the bones in a way consistent with the chemical changes which are found in ancient bones which have lain in similar quarries, etc. The connection where the jawbone would meet the rest of the skull was carefully broken so that there would be no evidence of lack of fit. The skull which was chosen was unusually thick compared to most modern skulls, further obscuring its true nature (it's interesting to note that the only human skulls which are normally this thick belong to the Ona indians of Patagonia, and Smith-Woodward, one of the suspects, acquired several Ona skulls in 1899). And so on.

It was definitely a hoax, but not an amateurish one by any means.

[egomeimihi]

Aquinas is my favorite. Wittgenstein, however, would be my favorite modern philosopher.

[RightWhale]

conned by the whole "Piltdown Man" hoax

Turned out he was, but it didn't matter to him in the long run, or even in the short run. It was just one incident among thousands in his career, and he had other disappointments that far outweighed that in his career. As a benefit, we're all more alert to hoaxing now.

[b4its2late]

My favorite is whoever said "kill all the lawyers".

[DaughterofEve]

This month it's Alvin Plantinga.

[jwalsh07]

So I'll go with Kant for general philosophy, and Madison and Hamilton for political philosophy.

Benjamin Franklin went with JC.

“He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity shall revolutionize the world.”

[decimon]

[Snuffington]

It was definitely a hoax, but not an amateurish one by any means.

A professor of mine used it as an example of one of the inherent dangers of science. Piltdown was exactly what the scientific community expected to find as the "missing link": A big brained ape as the first step between ape and human. The real "link" turned out to be the opposite: an ape brained hominid (Australopithecine). An excellent lesson in the need for skepticism.

[lawdude]

George Carlin. Don't agree with his politics but his delivery is great.

[annyokie]

Robert Heinlien? YEEEEEEEEE A guy who won'r ride in a car?

[annyokie]

Ayn Rand, without a doubt. If Neitzsche is a philosopher, Rand must be as well...



An idiot. Flame on!

[Ulysses]

Charlie Brown?

[freedumb2003]

>>Books, not boobs, define a philosopher.<<

yes, but a lot of philosophers were real boobs, so why can't a boob be a philosopher?

[aSkeptic]

Thomas Hobbes.

[ztiworoh]

Leo Strauss is my favorite, followed by Plato, Nietzche is interesting to me asweall though I dont always agree with him

[DoctorMichael]

Can't say I have a favorite myself. However...........

I absorbed everything (And I mean EVERYTHING!) Ayn Rand had written during my early to mid-20's.

Dabbled with Jung in my late 20's.

I really enjoyed reading Spinoza's ETHICS in my early 30's.........

........which led me to Wittgenstein's ETHICS.......

........which led me to Bertrand Russell (Who I ended up despising).......

.......which led me to his contemporary, Durant, and his works including THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION (Damn, that kept me busy for about 4 years!).......

.......which caused an interest in Political Philosophy, which led me to Kirk, Burke, Fukuyama, Newt, Sowell, Horowitz and the rest of the 'contemporary' crowd.

My heart still goes out to Rand because of her purity, although I now know her atheism is dead wrong and her Nietzsche-like God-hood is presumptuous, to say the least, and a dangerous precursor to Totalitarianism to say the worst.

[Jorge]

Jesus Christ, was Dubya's answer.

And I would agree.

NOBODY comes close to Jesus... he makes all others almost insignificant by comparision.

[annyokie]

Barf, Jung needed Haldol, IMO. Rand was just nuts.

[x]

He's not exactly my favorite or much fun, but lately the importance of Aristotle has really been brought home to me. Aristotle provides the base-line philosophy for a rational, coherent, and purposeful universe. That is why he was so influential in the Middle Ages and later. Like Plato, he tries to find order in the universe, but he starts with nature and works up, in contrast to Plato who starts with ideas and works down to the real and actual. We can certainly disagree with Aristotle, but we can't wholly get away from his influence or out of his shadow. And in disagreeing with him, we move closer to an irrational, chaotic and purposeless cosmos.

Aristotle's follower and explainer, Mortimer Adler, isn't my favorite, either. He's too much the "philosopher for the common man," too much the village explainer and too little the poet or prophet, too much the "little guy," but his works are an interesting and accessible introduction to philosophy.

What's most admirable about Adler is his rare passion -- not so much for ideas or theories, since that's not so rare a passion -- but for arguments and reason. For too many other writers on philosophy, the criteria for judgement are one's own political views or personal subjective preferences, but Adler is really concerned with where thinking and arguing actually take us.

It often looks like both Aristotle and his disciple Adler try to tie the world firmly down too much and make it look logical or rational and explained. It's natural that we rebel against such an overly logical and thoroughly explained view of the universe and natural to want to break up established systems to let in more air, but when we come to Aristotle and his disciple in a calmer mood, we'll find much in them that is valuable and truly wise.

[the lone wolf]

Would you please provide a source for your assertation that Robert Heinlein would not ride in a car? This is the first I have heard of it.

[Alberta's Child]

Good post -- thanks for the information. I thought a rusted old watch on the fossil's wrist was what gave it all away. LOL.

[lilylangtree]

Rene Descartes who, after keeping his head into a stove for awhile (I assume to generate some thinking juices) pulled his head out and said "I think. Therefore, I am."

[DoctorMichael]

Jung was certainly VERY wierd! But his imaginative/artsy-fartsey side and the tie-ins leading from that to the 'collective unconcious' STILL ring true to me to this day. I found his dream-depiction of God extremely repugnant, though. The myths surrounding his death send chills up my spine to this day. I enjoyed him much more than his mentor, Freud.

Rand's thought is VERY seductive when you are young and receptive to it. The older I get, the more critical of her I get. She was very 'Obsessive' in a abnormal-psych way. Still, her drive, single-mindedness and energy are an example of how far you rise here in America, starting out with nothing and just 'applying' yourself.

[Greg Packer]

"Books, not boobs, define a philosopher."

Precisely. And I've read Dolly's two breast sellers. One leans left and the other right. I'm inclined toward the middle.

[ChadGore]

"Only the dead have seen the end of War"
--Plato

[ztiworoh]

The problem with Rand is she puts too much faith in the common man, she views the individual as a creature that even through selfishness will ultimately do no wrong. In my view man has equal propensity for good and evil and thus social structures, be they religious, cultural, traditional, governmental must exist for mankind to reach its highest potential. It is only with the introduction of a set of moral laws that a culture can truly rise and removal of that moral structure inveitably destroys that culture. This is where I find a common thread with Leo Strauss, even if the rulers of a people find that the traditions of a people are meaningless, it is in the best interest of the people to keep that knowledge from them in order to maintain a sense of order.

[ChadGore]

Joseph de Maistre? Spare me from the french.

[aynrandfreak]

Ditto.

[DPB101]

Michael Oakeshott

Eugene Rose

Tage Lindbom

James Fitzjames Stephen

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

[annyokie]

LA Times magazine circa 1980. He'd let someone else drive him, though.