Polite Introduction

[arfink]

 

Which philosophers do you enjoy reading?

 

Of late I enjoy Josef Pieper. I also should warn you that I despised Kant, and Wittgenstein made me doubt the sanity of all philosophers. Although I found his ideas about philosophy of language rather refreshing, I found that when you applied his ideas directly to epistemology or metaphysics you wind up with a big hairy mess.

 

Oh, and Thomas Aquinas. I like that guy. :)

[Nihil Obstat]

I remain unconvinced that Hegel's career was not one giant practical joke which nobody ever caught.

[Lilllabettt]

pro-tip: don't take Hasan or Winchester seriously. ;)

 

pre-emptively informing on Winchester I see.

 

 

ps welcome to phatmass dude.

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[arfink]

I remain unconvinced that Hegel's career was not one giant practical joke which nobody ever caught.

 

That's kinda the way I feel about most modern and contemporary philosophers, and all manner of hipsters in general.

[Nihil Obstat]

That's kinda the way I feel about most modern and contemporary philosophers, and all manner of hipsters in general.

Sounds like an adequate basis for a new philosophical school. Jocularism...

[Selah]

pro-tip: don't take Hasan or Winchester seriously. ;)

 

This :lol:

[arfink]

Sounds like an adequate basis for a new philosophical school. Jocularism...

 

Let's do it. I think we should focus most of our inquiry on aesthetics, because aesthetics.

[John Ryan]

Of late I enjoy Josef Pieper. I also should warn you that I despised Kant, and Wittgenstein made me doubt the sanity of all philosophers. Although I found his ideas about philosophy of language rather refreshing, I found that when you applied his ideas directly to epistemology or metaphysics you wind up with a big hairy mess.

 

Oh, and Thomas Aquinas. I like that guy. :)

 

I read Josef Pieper's The Christian Idea of Man, which I rather enjoyed. He is a good Thomist philosopher/theologian and considering I love the virtue ethics of Aristotle, I assent with Pieper's focus on the four virtues and his stress on the value of leisure. St. Aquinas is quite interesting, but his writing style is terribly dry, so I find it difficult to read him.

 

Kant is probably the least interesting of the German Idealists. He is kind of a skeptic, and I think that Hegel does a decent job of sublating his subjective idealism. Wittgenstein is way too linked to the logical positivist movement for my taste. I do not really buy into this Rortian and Wittgensteinian death of epistemology and ontology, though I do maintain a healthy measure of postmodern doubt.

 

I remain unconvinced that Hegel's career was not one giant practical joke which nobody ever caught.

 

Hegelian philosophy makes a lot of sense to be (it's basically the same as Plato's), so I cannot take that assertion as anything but a practical joke.

[John Ryan]

Of late I enjoy Josef Pieper. I also should warn you that I despised Kant, and Wittgenstein made me doubt the sanity of all philosophers. Although I found his ideas about philosophy of language rather refreshing, I found that when you applied his ideas directly to epistemology or metaphysics you wind up with a big hairy mess.

 

Oh, and Thomas Aquinas. I like that guy. :)

 

I read Josef Pieper's The Christian Idea of Man, which I rather enjoyed. He is a good Thomist philosopher/theologian and considering I love the virtue ethics of Aristotle, I assent with Pieper's focus on the four virtues and his stress on the value of leisure. St. Aquinas is quite interesting, but his writing style is terribly dry, so I find it difficult to read him.

 

Kant is probably the least interesting of the German Idealists. He is kind of a skeptic, and I think that Hegel does a decent job of sublating his subjective idealism. Wittgenstein is way too linked to the logical positivist movement for my taste. I do not really buy into this Rortian and Wittgensteinian death of epistemology and ontology, though I do maintain a healthy measure of postmodern doubt.

 

I remain unconvinced that Hegel's career was not one giant practical joke which nobody ever caught.

 

Hegelian philosophy makes a lot of sense to be (it's basically the same as Plato's), so I cannot take that assertion as anything but a practical joke.

[arfink]

St. Thomas Aquinas, dry? Well, if you consider that the Summa basically amounts to in-class notes taken by scribes as he taught, it makes some sense. The richness of his thought is pretty amazing once you cut through the thick historical rind.

[Basilisa Marie]

  :welcome:

 

We've got all kinds around here, Catholics all over the spectrum, atheists, Eastern Catholics... The best thing for you to do is just jump right in and share your opinion on stuff.  Debate Table's for serious (or ridiculous) arguing, Transmundane is for serious spiritual discussion, Open Mic is the catch all, and the Lame board is for nonsense.  Phatmass can sometimes have a sense of humor that requires a learning curve, so like other have said, don't take anything Winchester and Hasan say seriously, and the curse word fiddler also changes other words, to keep things interesting. 

 

Oh and right now I love Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer counts as a philosopher, right? Meh.  He's a bro. 

Edited September 7, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Winchester]

Go away.

[Selah]

Go away.

 

 

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ

[4588686]

Go away.

 

 

You forgot to add 'fatty.'  And what's with all these snitches.  We're going to have to start shanking rats.  

[4588686]

 

 

Hegelian philosophy makes a lot of sense to be (it's basically the same as Plato's), so I cannot take that assertion as anything but a practical joke.

 

 

Neither Hegel nor Plato make much sense.  Neopragmatism ftw.