Descartes, Locke, Leibniz and Kant surely deserved on too, as do Plato and Aristotle.
The problem, then, is finding a suitable candidate after the middle of the 19th century. Russell did win one, as merited, but not for his intellectual contributions. — Manuel
Who said it was a jab at Janus ? Although that does have a nice alliterative ring to it. — Tom Storm
I agree those philosophers were pivotal to the development of modern philosophy. But then what about Spinoza, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Peirce, James, Dewey and others I haven't mentioned. — Janus
Bartrick's — Janus
Derrida was a good philosopher. Again, I don't agree with some of his arguments, but his influence is valid. — Jackson
It's not one specific idea, although one could mention differance or hauntology or whatever else he argued, it's several factors.
I won't go into details here, for one thing, people do find him useful and two, I have not read too much of him, though a bit from his followers. The thing is, if I'm not liking or finding persuasive what I'm reading, why bother going on?
There are plenty of others to read.
In short, willfully obscure writing, no regard for proper arguments, constantly saying people misunderstand him, then proceed to make fun of others, etc.
This has not been good for philosophy, in my opinion. For literature, paradoxically, the results are not too bad. — Manuel
How to do philosophy?
By using our brains (truth) & hearts (good) [Xin (heart-mind)]. Wisdom (sophia) is knowing what is true (verum) and what is good (bonum). — Agent Smith
Abstinence — Merkwurdichliebe
Avoid beauty (pulchrum), you hairy beast! Alack, it's too late for me! I've already tasted flesh!
↑ My attempted at a joke! — Agent Smith
In my experience, an optimal means of "doing philosophy" is Gnosis — Bret Bernhoft
How does one do Gnosis and can you provide an example of it in action? — Tom Storm
which appears to be a common thread — Bret Bernhoft
There are also questioning sorts of interests that are hard even to formulate as simple questions. For instance, language seems to work, but what it even works at is not clear, what it even does is confusing. And there are ways of conceiving of language that suggest it cannot possibly work at whatever it's doing, which we still don't know. I don't think I'm ever going to shake my fascination with that little knot. — Srap Tasmaner
axiomatized logic — Srap Tasmaner
How does one do Gnosis and can you provide an example of it in action? — Tom Storm
Describe three.
— baker
Sally, Matthew, Mark, Rowena, Tony - there's five people I know well who live outside of a dog-eat-dog worldview. I know a few people who live in the nastier world you describe, but most do not. Unless you take any interaction with the contemporary world as an example of your point. — Tom Storm
Is there evidence that philosophy is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated?
So my question isn't about evoking a variation of Plato's cave. My question is can you (or anyone) demonstrate that philosophy is of benefit? What would it even look like for philosophy to be of use - would we see equality/world peace/environmental healing?
I think this example is a good one and this happened to us in our once rural area too twenty years ago. The quality and experience of life changes for the worse, but it's largely an aesthetic experience.
That's like asking whether breathing is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated. — baker
Listing names isn't a description. — baker
It seems your obsession with your status as non-philosopher is getting in the way of thinking clearly. — baker
I don't feel like looking up images of concentration camp prisoners and such. "Largely an aesthetic experience". — baker
That's like asking whether breathing is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated.
— baker
No it's not. Breathing is completely unavoidable. Philosophy is avoidable. Odd comparison. — Tom Storm
Listing names isn't a description.
— baker
I would have thought that this is my point - such a description is not possible. You can't readily describe people who have chosen not to behave in the manner you have suggested without going into lengthy biography.
Am I not thinking clearly? I never said I thought clearly.
I don't feel like looking up images of concentration camp prisoners and such. "Largely an aesthetic experience".
— baker
Is this a non sequitur? Why mention concentration camps?
So it sounds like you won't engage with my question, but opt to dismiss it instead as poor thinking. Ok.
The difference between philosophers and people who aren't that (or who make a point of claiming not to be philosophers) is in how systematically and how in accordance with the philosophical tradition they reflect on the big topics. — baker
To classify this decrease merely as "largely an aesthetic experience" takes away the relevance of this decrease. — baker
I've been trying to show you why your question is wrong, and why your persistent declarations of "not being a philosopher" are misguided. — baker
Is there evidence that philosophy is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated? — Tom Storm
One of the assumptions in critical thinking is that it is possible to rationally, with arguments, summarize a person's stance on any given topic. — baker
To be "ordinary", one needs to live in a very small world, have a small mind, have a dog-eat-dog heart. Many people live this way, and they seem to do just fine. — baker
It needs to be said that doing philosophy is extraordinarily hard. Almost anyone can notice the smell, but fixing the leak requires some unusual skills and background. — Banno
But if the plumbing is working then we would understand it. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.