No, please, don't make me say it again today....... >:O

Agustino for the most underrated philosopher...for good reason, too...

Ayn Rand...though I am not sure she even counts.

Ayn Rand — m-theory

Is tonight star trek meme night at TPF?

Bruv, but I'm already rated highly, I'm your favorite already!

I can't pick just one. I'd say these, though: Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida. If not the most overrated, then certainly these are the most irritating, to me at least.

Karl Marx

Plato. Especially if you take the old Whitehead "footnote to Plato" quote seriously. In terms of modern philosophical discourse, I don't much see the point in being overly interested in what Plato had to say about some topic.

I don't think Heidegger is overrated at all. The radical new understanding of human existence he articulates in B&T makes it one of the most insightful and revolutionary philosophical works I've ever read. And the results of this work of fundamental ontology have relevance for a wide variety of important topics, such as art, technology, and theology to name a few.

So in what will surely draw the ire of his horde of detractors, I would put it him up there with the all-time 'greats' - far superior IMO to Nietzsche (whom I also appreciate) in many ways - and this despite his horrendous political decision. I do occasionally wish he would have omitted some of the extraneous and unnecessary aspects of his writing style, but at other times I appreciate the entire 'production' he puts forward in dramatic fashion. His writing can be mesmerizing once you have a decent grasp of his terminology, especially the 'later' stuff. At least I find it so.

Just my opinion. I'll be glad to discuss further with anyone who's actually made a legitimate attempt to read and understand him. I totally get the reason(s) why people don't generally like him upon initial reading, largely due to his near impenetrable use of language. It's also hard to look beyond his Nazi past, which is understandable.

The more you study a subject, the less important any individual figure seems. There aren't great philosophers, and thinking there are just means you haven't read enough. *shrug*

Renee Descartes.

The dude was a complete amateur. He did his [equivalent of] undergraduate in philosophy with the Jesuits, subsequently forgot everything, and then started asking advice for some anthologies to get him "up to speed" on philosophy again.

He was an amateur. The modern philosophical period is a PERIOD of amateurs up until Kant, and shame on him for basing his academic philosophy on the work of amateurs.

Dishonor. Dishonor on them. Dishonor on their whole families. Dishonor on their cows.

The "footnote to Plato" thing is mostly accurate, though, at least if we're talking about philosophy posterior to Plato and prior to Descartes. The entire period was basically one giant debate between Plato and Aristotle. Throw in some materialism here. Remove materialism, and replace with some Islam there. Replace Islam with some Christianity there...

...You get the idea.

And yeah. That's basically philosophy before Descartes. And even after Descartes, there's pretty heavy Platonic influence.

Either way, I think that two things are happening:

1. You are grossly underestimating Plato, mainly because you've probably only read him through modern lenses. Jonathan Barnes and Proclus are not equal interpreters of Plato and Aristotle. Just saying.

2. You are grossly overestimating modern thought and methods.

The most over-rated philosophers are three philosophers: Plotinus, Malebranche, Berkeley.
It seems that Plotinus is not similar to Plato. I don't think that Plotinus is a platonist at all.
Malebranche is worse than Descartes. Malebranche's metaphysics is the composed volume of falsity.
Berkeley was defeated by G. E. Moore. Many people hate idealism.

The "footnote to Plato" thing is mostly accurate, though, at least if we're talking about philosophy posterior to Plato and prior to Descartes

Well so far as I know, Whitehead (from whom the quote originates) was presumably talking about philosophy writ large, not the period between Plato & Descartes. My claim was *never* that there wasn't a clear Platonic influence on (Western) philosophy. It was that Plato is, in my opinion, overrated and that Whitehead's statement should not be taken as being literally true, nor accurate.

1. You are grossly underestimating Plato, mainly because you've probably only read him through modern lenses. Jonathan Barnes and Proclus are not equal interpreters of Plato and Aristotle. Just saying.

2. You are grossly overestimating modern thought and methods.

Well I don't see how I'm underestimating Plato, seeing as my only contention thus far was that the idea that philosophy is but "a footnote to Plato" is just silly.

I think modern thought and methods have, on the whole and quite expectedly, surpassed Plato (and Aristotle) long ago. And by such (echoing another comment), I mean that the diversity, exposition & investigation of virtually all philosophical questions has far surpassed anything that Plato could have imagined. To argue otherwise is to, I think, place certain figures on pedestals that make little sense, and which devalues the actual discourse amongst philosophers. Something which naturally tends to be more fruitful than pinning a single person (or 2) as the eternal master of a discipline. And all of that is to ignore the ridiculous eurocentrism this blog view is predicated on.

(Y) >:O

Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida — Thorongil

I'm not so sure - there's probably more good ideas in Nietzsche than in all the other 4 combined :P

Berkeley was defeated by G. E. Moore. — mosesquine

With his "here is a hand" argument?

With his "here is a hand" argument? — Michael

Yeah, with the here is a mental hand, and here is another mental hand - thus there are two mental hands, and therefore there is no external world! >:O

Yeah, with the here is a mental hand, and here is another mental hand - thus there are two mental hands, and therefore there is no external world! — Agustino

I know this is a joke, but the conclusion doesn't follow. ;)

With his 'The Refutation of Idealism'.

Moore says that Berkeley did not tell objects from perceptions of objects.

Hello?

Most overrated philosopher? Mencius. That guy is ass.

Xunzi the real stud, amirite?

I'm not very fond of confucianism in general. Besides, I don't think Confucius was a confucianist. Dude was into Chinese naturalism. His "Analects" take on a different meaning if you're familiar with the "I Ching".

Every contintental philosopher who is well-regarded. I'd include Kant in that by the way.

Aside from that, Wittgenstein is a good choice, especially as he's been so influential to 20th century philosophy.

Aristotle to an extent. He deserves credit for being so (relatively) systematic, prolific and comprehensive, but his conclusions are mostly wrong and his writing is very awkward.

I'd also say Aquinas, although I can understand his popularity as he's basically Aristotle for uber-religious folks. Historically, there's no one else who can compare with him for that niche.

Aside from that, Wittgenstein is a good choice, especially as he's been so influential to 20th century philosophy. — Terrapin Station

Is the valence of this statement in the positive or negative. Can't tell.

If I think he's a good choice, in the context of this thread, I'm saying that he's a good choice for "most overrated."