• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Favourite Philosophers?

*runs away*

Through I find value in Habermas (reviving and sociologizing universal freedom), the LATER wittgenstein, quine (technically an american pragmatist), Lukacs (linking ideology and social structure novelly and usefully), and Gramsci (power extending outside the centralized core of the state, a better way to think of class-conflict and politics in general)
 
You're into Foucault and Habermas?

I'm afraid that's not acceptable, you'll have to choose ;)
 
And a lot of great musicians are assholes.
does it always matter?
 
Yeah I'd say the majority of philosophers definitely subscribed to some type of theology. With the exception of a small minority (such as certain Ancient Greek philosophers like Diagorus, Democritus, and the Carvakas in India), atheistic philosophy essentially came into fruition only within the past few hundred years during the Age of Enlightenment.
 
i find it amazing how little faith these "faith-warriors" actually have. they're actually jumping up and down at the thought of (their idea of) God 'throwing it in the face' of atheists. as some kind of repressed/substituted will to power, which is then justified for release because its through God. im sure God is not goin "see! see! i told you so! when a lost son returns in misery. these faith-warroirs have seem to have little fate considering they're threatened enough by atheists to go out of their way to fight them. Maybe instead of fighting, they should consider: "what is God trying to tell ME when i'm feeling struck by 'atheists'." no, God is not talking to them of course, its all the atheist's fault. the atheist is not going to be converted by fighting him, on the contrary, he'll just get more confirmation what a whackjob the fate-warrior is. because thats what he is. he contradicts his own faith. the fate-warrior actually *wants* the atheist to burn in hell. and it is here he loses his faith.

they should take a good look at the parable of the lost son.

/rant at self-righteousness
 
azzazza !? said:
i find it amazing how little faith these "faith-warriors" actually have. they're actually jumping up and down at the thought of (their idea of) God 'throwing it in the face' of atheists. as some kind of repressed/substituted will to power, which is then justified for release because its through God. im sure God is not goin "see! see! i told you so! when a lost son returns in misery. these faith-warroirs have seem to have little fate considering they're threatened enough by atheists to go out of their way to fight them. Maybe instead of fighting, they should consider: "what is God trying to tell ME when i'm feeling struck by 'atheists'." no, God is not talking to them of course, its all the atheist's fault. the atheist is not going to be converted by fighting him, on the contrary, he'll just get more confirmation what a whackjob the fate-warrior is. because thats what he is. he contradicts his own faith. the fate-warrior actually *wants* the atheist to burn in hell. and it is here he loses his faith.

they should take a good look at the parable of the lost son.

/rant at self-righteousness
Click to expand...


u don't know what ur talking about, ur saying preachers are happy the other person is going to hell, then why do preachers of all religions preach? you are really confused.
 
im not talking about preachers, im talking about the "you'll go to hell people" judge ye not lest ye be judged. a good preacher preaches primarely because he is full-filled by his God, his primary goal is not to convert people, but to 'carry outwardly' his faith.
 
Last edited:
satricion said:
If this turns into a religion vs atheism thread I will slit my wrists.
Click to expand...

I'm good for keeping that from happening, fear not kind sir.

There's a lot more to philosophy than the existence of God. You can disagree with a philosopher's take on this issue, but very much like their arguments on other issues. It's really a shame this is the only issue a good number of people ever walk into their local philosophy shop looking for.

People seem to assume philosophy is a game only atheists play. But there have been prominent philosophers who've belonged to every major religious group. The existence of a supreme being is a question some philosophers don't even take on, especially ones who don't really do metaphysics.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
I'm good for keeping that from happening, fear not kind sir.

There's a lot more to philosophy than the existence of God. You can disagree with a philosopher's take on this issue, but very much like their arguments on other issues. It's really a shame this is the only issue a good number of people ever walk into their local philosophy shop looking for.

People seem to assume philosophy is a game only atheists play. But there have been prominent philosophers who've belonged to every major religious group. The existence of a supreme being is a question some philosophers don't even take on, especially ones who don't really do metaphysics.
Click to expand...

(with the fact that this is not a religion vs atheism argument in mind)

That's totally true. And in fact some of the most important continental philosophers have been religious: Spinoza and Liebniz spring to mind. Both had fairly radical ontologies, and yet both made god the centre of ontology. It turned out to be a bit of a cop out though, particularly for Leibniz who really pushed the boundaries of what he said can exist, and then copped out by saying "and the reason that we have this world instead of others is god."

Both of these guys were major influences on Deleuze though, and he sure as hell isn't religious.
 
azzazza !? said:
im not talking about preachers, im talking about the "you'll go to hell people" judge ye not lest ye be judged. a good preacher preaches primarely because he is full-filled by his God, his primary goal is not to convert people, but to 'carry outwardly' his faith.
Click to expand...

Your english really sucks. it's very ambiguous, write concise, write clear, make your argument clear: Obama style. Are you writing for the reader or for yourself?

One of the greatest philosophers: Allama Iqbal

But the west shows him no love:(
 
wreckless2009 said:
Your english really sucks. it's very ambiguous, write concise, write clear, make your argument clear: Obama style. Are you writing for the reader or for yourself?
Click to expand...

i do that on purpose. i don't believe in pre-chewed clear-cut arguments that tell you what to do or how to think. there are none. for every clear-cut argument, there is an opposite one valued just as much by other people, many times for reasons not rational at heart. thinking is more then cold reason, as a religious person (i presume) i take it you know that. im not here to posit the choices I made. my writing style is intended to make the reader start thinking about something, for himself. which i consider the purpose of philosophy. i try to show you your options, at least those that are internally consistent. and especially those most overlook. that usually requires paradoxes and the like. the path the reader choses passing the ambiguities tells the reader about himself. De te fabula narratur. yes, im a continental. yes, those that are mostly weird whackjobs to 99% of the population.
 
azzazza !? said:
i do that on purpose. i don't believe in pre-chewed clear-cut arguments that tell you what to do or how to think. there are none. for every clear-cut argument, there is an opposite one valued just as much by other people, many times for reasons not rational at heart. thinking is more then cold reason, as a religious person (i presume) i take it you know that. im not here to posit the choices I made. my writing style is intended to make the reader start thinking about something, for himself. which i consider the purpose of philosophy. i try to show you your options, at least those that are internally consistent. and especially those most overlook. that usually requires paradoxes and the like. the path the reader choses passing the ambiguities tells the reader about himself. De te fabula narratur. yes, im a continental. yes, those that are mostly weird whackjobs to 99% of the population.
Click to expand...

You need to get laid! im just teasing u. I understand what you mean, but you can always present these unclear ideas and thoughts and arguments in a clearly written manner. Many great thinkers manage to do it, but then again there are those who manage not to, i guess every personality is different. Nevertheless, from a social perspective i hope you don't talk the way you write, you'll attract way more people and make way more friends:). I'm teasin you again. I love you and have great respect for the person and thinker that you are. I have a friend who writes exactly the way u do and i keep thinking of him everytime u write and i'm always joking around with him as well. Be yourself!
 
^those great thinkers have and need 500 pages to make things clear that are -once one understands them at a mysterious semi-existent pre-linguistic level- relativly simple infact (seemingly). when i finally grasped Being and Time, i was left wondering why the hell heidegger had to make things that are so simple so difficult. Once you try explaining it to other people that haven't understood it though, you begin to understand his contorted archaic writing; even to the point you begin to value it as 'artistic', and, heaven forbid, praise it. lol

i have to do with 5 or 10 measely lines for some half-hearted attempt at an explanation for which i lack the time and/or motivation, on a non-peer forum nota bene (no fast accurate jargon). many a post i start typing never gets posted due to unreadability, those i do post i deem reasonably readable, maybe they're not, but well, those at least seem to have the possibility for a layman to find something somewhat useful in it. it requires quite some effort to do that.

and no i don't talk like that in daily life. except when amongst peers. but thats a few qualitative levels worse. Hier wird nicht geheideggert!

You need to get laid!
Click to expand...
i agree =D at least im quiet then

oh and: Maurice Blanchot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top