What kind of philosophy do you enjoy the most?

Drone said:
In fact I would argue most of philosophy is in favor of "divine" or raging against it.
Click to expand...

Haha! There has been a lot of raging against the divine... I think you're right for some branches of philosophy, but not all. I don't think the philosophies of logic and knowledge fall under that umbrella. But it's undeniable that much philosophy since Plato, perhaps even the Presocratics, has been covertly competing with theology for metaphysical and moral explanations.
 
This thread has been essentially asleep for three weeks.... I won't attempt to revive it, but in case people are curious, here are some elements about my own background and proclivities.

I identify as a existential monist, i.e. one of my goals is to reconcile some major existential teachings with ontological monism. (Basically my position is one that I have to articulate from scratch). The quote that has influenced me the most is "Man never steps into the same river twice" by Heraclitus. The well-known philosopher I find the most boring and overrated is (by far) Seneca. The philosopher whose words have helped me the most in facing up to life is Marcus Aurelius. A philosopher whose work I believe is yet to be fully appreciated for its depth and influence is Rousseau. The two greatest philosophers of the twentieth century? Heidegger and Wittgenstein. Cartesianism? Annoyingly persistent. The most moving and "human" philosophy? The work of Spinoza, Montaigne, and St. Augustine. My favorite analytic philosophers? Wittgenstein, Russell, Quine and Gilbert Ryle. My least favorite continental philosopher? I'm honestly not a big fan of Derrida, though it would be a stretch to say he's my "least favorite". The philosopher whose thought I'd particularly like to engage more in the near future: Hegel.

Food for thought:

martin-heidegger-35888.jpg
 
I recently listened to few podcasts and youtube lectures about Aristotle, and I'm really impressed with his ideas. I don't know why, but I always considered him inferior to Socrates and Plato. Probably because his scientific and biological approach didn't seem so profound to me as Plato's and Socrates' rationalism.

Granted, I am a complety noob in philosophy, but after listening to all of this Aristotle probably overtook Socrates and Plato in my internal standings :)

I LOLed a lot when I heard this (from Philosophize this podcast):

"Plato famously said that unexamined life is not worth living, but Aristotle got one over his teacher by saying that unplanned life is not worth examining"
 
philostam said:
I recently listened to few podcasts and youtube lectures about Aristotle, and I'm really impressed with his ideas. I don't know why, but I always considered him inferior to Socrates and Plato. Probably because his scientific and biological approach didn't seem so profound to me as Plato's and Socrates' rationalism.

Granted, I am a complety noob in philosophy, but after listening to all of this Aristotle probably overtook Socrates and Plato in my internal standings :)

I LOLed a lot when I heard this (from Philosophize this podcast):

"Plato famously said that unexamined life is not worth living, but Aristotle got one over his teacher by saying that unplanned life is not worth examining"
Click to expand...

Haha.

Yeah, Aristotle is a giant. It is not uncommon to find philosophers who consider him to be the greatest who ever lived.

He is more versatile and systematic than Plato, and in my opinion just as profound. Plato is a much better writer, though.

And as for those who say that Plato was more innovative... well, Aristotle did kind of invent logic, lol
 
Hmm. Interesting. Good to know - for example, I didn't know Aristotle invented logic. I am looking forward to learning new things about philosophy by participating on this forum. MBTI itself already kind of exhausted itself.

But yes, I downloaded Nicomachean ethics on my kindle. I read only few pages but I can already tell I'm gonna like it. It's amazing to be able to read people who probably had an IQ pushing towards 200. In fact, I read that philosophers as a group have the highest IQ of all professions, higher even than scientists. I personally believe in IQ (I know it's fashionable not to), and I consider myself pretty smart (never took IQ test though) - but definitely not close to the genius level. And all of this great philosphers probably had an IQ of 160+.

So yes...I guess ethics would be the field of philosophy that interests me the most. I would even consider the work of Jordan Peterson to be kind of in this domain. Or am I wrong? I like him, but I wonder how much of it is only because he is available to listen and has his own podcast, Listening is definitely easier than reading for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
philostam said:
Hmm. Interesting. Good to know - for example, I didn't know Aristotle invented logic. I am looking forward to learning new things about philosophy by participating on this forum. MBTI itself already kind of exhausted itself.

But yes, I downloaded Nicomachean ethics on my kindle. I read only few pages but I can already tell I'm gonna like it. It's amazing to be able to read people who probably had an IQ pushing towards 200. In fact, I read that philosophers as a group have the highest IQ of all professions, higher even than scientists. I personally believe in IQ (I know it's fashionable not to), and I consider myself pretty smart (never took IQ test though) - but definitely not close to the genius level. And all of this great philosphers probably had an IQ of 160+.

So yes...I guess ethics would be the field of philosophy that interests me the most. I would even consider the work of Jordan Peterson to be kind of in this domain. Or am I wrong? I like him, but I wonder how much of it is only because he is available to listen and has his own podcast, Listening is definitely easier than reading for me.
Click to expand...

I'll definitely always be up for discussing philosophical topics! Few things get me as excited ;)

Nicomathean Ethics is a classic. The writing is very dense but it's a very rewarding book, which has a strong claim to being the first work of what is called virtue ethics — a branch of ethics still alive and well today. @Pin is also a big fan of the book, I believe.

Where did you read that philosophers as a group have the highest IQ of all professions? Personally, I'm not too sure about that, but I'm still curious.

I'd say Peterson does work that has clear ethical implications/dimensions but I wouldn't say he works 'in' ethics specifically. If you think otherwise, what would you say is the ethical framework that Peterson has developed and currently defends?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin
About philosophers and IQ is from the book Genius by psychologist Eysenck. It's an interesting book, although he was accused of being right-wing. But I don't believe that - not everyone who doesn't dismiss IQ as total nonsense is right-wing.

I researched a bit on virtue ethics. I find myself agreeing with this point of view. I fact, I'd say that's how I approached life even before knowing what it is. It reminds me of exposure therapy - you have to do what's painful to you untill it becomes pleasurable. That's also a point that Aristotle stresses in book II.

One example. I was lucky I did well in school because I actually enjoyed studying. Well, at least in University. So university wasn't a struggle of willpower or determination like it was for some classmates. I think that's the point. If you are lucky and you posses good virtue (like love for learning for example), you enjoy doing the action associated with it, i.e learning.

So the point is to build as many good virtues as possible so they become second nature. That's my simplistic understanding - but I always want to simplify things and apply them to the real life. That's the perk of only reading philosphy for pleasure and not for academic purposes - you don't need to get very technical about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
And just out of curiosity and because I like lists. Could you make a list of some of your favourite works (perhaps in the ethical domain) and give a brief description why? If it's too much work, just titles is also fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
philostam said:
About philosophers and IQ is from the book Genius by psychologist Eysenck. It's an interesting book, although he was accused of being right-wing. But I don't believe that - not everyone who doesn't dismiss IQ as total nonsense is right-wing.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I'd still be curious to discover more about the method he uses to reach the conclusion that philosophers 'as a whole' have higher IQs than, say, physicists or mathematicians. Maybe I'll pick up the book sometime and have a look.

Don't get me wrong, philosophers can be highly intelligent people, but there is a whole dimension of creativity, figurative expression, and parable to philosophy that might not be captured perfectly by the IQ test. In that regard philosophy (in its continental incarnation, anyway) has certain close ties with literature.
 
philostam said:
And just out of curiosity and because I like lists. Could you make a list of some of your favourite works (perhaps in the ethical domain) and give a brief description why? If it's too much work, just titles is also fine.
Click to expand...

Ethics is not really the discipline I 'specialize' in, so I may not have a lot of books to recommend. But here are a few good ones:

Plato, Republic (the basics, really — lays the foundation for many of the ethical traditions to follow)
Spinoza, Ethics (limpid, almost geometrical writing, perfectly illustrates the intimate link between metaphysics and ethics)
Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (the founding work of existentialist ethics)
Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals (absolutely fundamental in my opinion, deep critique of Christian morality and of the need for a new moral valuation)
John Rawls, Theory of Justice (most influential moral philosopher of the twentieth century, in the social contract tradition)
Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (the book that signaled the revival of virtue ethics)
Thomas Nagel, The Possibility of Altruism (action-oriented, altruistic ethics by a leading philosopher in the analytic tradition).
 
Ren said:
Aw, it’s great to hear! I am actually Renaud Contini :sweatsmile: glad you are enjoying open monism! Would love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Wow! What a coincidence!... Love your thought flow. I've been watching your channel daily since this summer and it's been quite helpful to understand infj / mbti better as I relate a lot with your personal views. About OM, still grasping through its concepts and what a delightful journey has been!... Thank you for sharing your legacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Bastardio said:
Is there anyone who knows about theological noncognitivism? What do you think of it?
Click to expand...

Not an expert on it or anything but it's definitely an interesting theory.

Rather than consider religious discourse meaningless though, I would rather consider it meaningful from a non-logical perspective.
 
Sophya said:
"... Do you like philosophers who lead with insight?..."

Well, as a massive philosophy fan too, I'm currently enjoying listening to this (Open Monism - original great vision by Renaud Contini, an infj himself):

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSBg6qSVhRUfPVdoyl2EZG5pApnD0DKCh
Click to expand...
Ren said:
Aw, it’s great to hear! I am actually Renaud Contini :sweatsmile: glad you are enjoying open monism! Would love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Sophya said:
Wow! What a coincidence!... Love your thought flow. I've been watching your channel daily since this summer and it's been quite helpful to understand infj / mbti better as I relate a lot with your personal views. About OM, still grasping through its concepts and what a delightful journey has been!... Thank you for sharing your legacy.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top