If you could combine the best traits of any philosophers you've studied this year (first and second semesters) to make one SUPER-PHILOSOPHER, who/what would you choose? Why?
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
My super philosopher would have the respect for science and empiricism of Hume and Ayer, the good/free will of Kant, Freud's acceptance of raw human agression and sexual desires be the motivation for some of our acts, Sartre's responsibility for our actions and need to live through ourselves not through other people, also he would have wolverine's claws and superman's flying ability. I believe respect for science is crucial these days and cannot go unrecognized because it gives us facts we can choose to agree or not agree with using our senses. And if we didn't have senses what else would we have to make decisions about the world. The free will of Kant because I believe humans have the potential to be mostly good people through their actions even though maybe the unconscious desires sometimes drive us to do things we woudn't normally do like taking our anger out on somebody or something that doesn't deserve it. I think Sarttre definitely had the right idea in his theoryt hat we are entirely responsible for everything we do, we cannot blame a mistake we make on fate or wait for something amazing to happen because it's God's plan, we are the only ones responsible for making our lives what we want them to be. As for the claws and flying ability..those speak for themselves
My suoerphilosopher would be the most "realisticly truthful" he would need to be empirical like hume beacause i dont really like the philisophical tradition of rationalism (descartes, plato) THAT FORGETS THAT WE ARE HUMAN AND SUBJECT TO A MATERAIL WORLD... we cannot have anything in our rational minds if it wasnt for our access to the materail world... we would be empty inside... the material world is vital for our exsistence and it makes us human by definition... so empiricism would be vital descartes assertion of the cogito is extremely important in philoophy as the exsistentialists say... it proves that we exsist and at the same time all those around us assert it they exsist as well... rationalism is important because it is the most important thing that separates us from animals and so it would have to be included.. ive also realized a gap in the study of emotion- this is a second part of humanity that separates us from animals and it is extremely important because humans often act on it- most philosophers dont acknowledge it- i feel like someone needs to use empiricism and rationalism to find a place for emotion in the study of philosophy freud's acknowledgement of human instinct is important because all humans have animalistic instincts as part of thier relation with the material world... it kind of acknowledges emotion but i feel he takes it to far because he forgets rationalism.... however it is a good argument against those who solely root for rationalism and i like that he identifies civilization and the social aspect of the world- more philosophers have to look at that then theres ethics... i like kants idea of responsibility for our actions... but there are no universal ethics... like the exsistentialists say... life is what u make it... as long as we accept the responsibility of others that comes with this... i think ayer is wrong about it all being emotion though... its a little too serious a matter for that kind of assertion.... and i love thrasymachus' take on ethics- he is completely right and philosophers need to look more closely at it.... morals have been relative over history... to this day they are remenants of the stronger- the powerful catholic church.... as nichomachean ethics states- life is the pursuit of happiness (also freud) and as the exsistentialists say there really is no right and wrong... just as we take it in the situation.... and this is where the gaps of emotion and socialization should come in... we know something is wrong because it hurts other ppl... we can feel it and so can they... that is the power of sympathy and empathy that all but psychopaths have.... but the question is- are we socialized to have emotion or did the emotion come first.... same with morals... noe thats a question worth asking... same with rationalism... after all- what we learn, what we do and what we feel is all in the context of civilization and society... all of the "state of nature" experiments where philosophers try to think of themselves in a state of nature without society cannot be really accurate because they just contemplate... as far as proof is concerened the only natural things about humans are thier instincts.... but humans live in society and so follow... thinking, emotion and morals... all affected by socialization.... and diffrent societies act diffrently toward those 3 things... especially as time as shown us... so we really have to look at that.... basically what is right is trying to make ourselves happy in a world where we always affect others... sometimes negatively.... is that our perogative? should we care? and if we should... why? were all stuck in this together after all... the problem is trying to be good in a world where many arent... i guess religion and the law are institutions which try to force the whole world to be good so that it makes sense for each of us to be good..... if we lived in a world of anarchy we would have to be more freudian and less rational... i guess everything is relative... and thats why exsistentialism is so important... in the end we should look at the context of the situation and act according to that... never forgetting the whole situation and humanity.....AND SO FOLLOWS WHAT A PERFECT PHILOSOPHER LOOKS LIKE.... Ok so they contemplate transcending reality like plato (unlike hume/ayer... who think phl is only good for the realistic... its also about thinking abstractly and contemplating too... but no life of the philospher bs... more like politics.. or a philosopher in action)- but they dont take it too far because it isnt realistic or provable.. they still pay attention to humans rationality and its power... but they like to prove things and give importance to the material world and reality and instinct- because we are human... also they take emotion into thought and other people... they know that ethics is relative but not in an anarchic way... they know we shouldnt harm others... they look at the world history and the future and use that to contemplate all... they are atheist (because god cant be proven) and their humanistic... like exsistentialists .... they acept the dignity and power of humanity, life, choice and freewill.... it would be good if they were omnipotent... it might help to get us answers quicker if they knoew everything... but i guess thats asking too much and it wouldnt really be phl if we had all the answers... oh yea... they have to be good writers and speak in a straightforward way so that normal humans could understand them... like plato,satre, freud and descartes kinds... not hume... if they were artistic- wrote plays and were in politics- preferably the president of the us that would be amazing... not to extremist and a little more on the exsistentialist way of thinking.... vwala- THE PERFECT PHILOSOPHER!!! lmao...
oh yea.... it would help if they looked like brad pitt (lol)... more ppl might listen and no kant 40 year old virgen stuff... if they travel the world and experience it and read A LOT of books they might be able to tell us more through experience and a lot of knowledge.... yea im asking to much... but you said the perfect philosopher... i had to be complete... lol
My super philosopher would be Sartre plus other elements. His basis would be Sartre because I like Sartre, who recognizes philosophy as a matter of day-to-day life, and calls for responsibility of all human beings in choosing everything about you and your life, regardless of God’s existence. I think that human beings are at least to some extent rational, but also think that we are driven by our instincts at the bottom. So I would add Freud’s thoughts that we are driven by our instinctual drives, and we are unconscious of our motives. I would add the theory that considers mathematics as the truth, suggested by Hume, Ayer and Descartes, for it seems that I can’t oppose it in order to explain what is true and what is not. Though I think Sartre does not believe in the ideal society which Plato suggested, and I don’t think it is possible in the real world, I just liked Plato’s idea of a philosopher as a political figure, who come down to the cave and tells us what the Sun is like, so I add it too. My super philosopher might look strange and does seem to be contradicted, but I guess it doesn’t matter; he is a Super Philosopher…: )
hmmm my super philosopher would be aristokantartre. that would be aristotle, kant, and sartre. i love aristotles idea of man being social and it being important to hit the mean in good qualities. i think his idea of being a eudaimon is great which is just striving to live and fare well and reach a position where you can take time out to comtemplate. i like alot of kantian ethics and i think the concept of doing things that it would be ohkay if everyone in the world was doing it is very sound. i personally dont believe you do anything without an intent to serve you, even if you are techinically gonig against your desires. and that where i liek sartre, because he takes into account that in the end, what we do is done because we felt the inclination to do it. and the fact that we did it, means we wanted to do it. so my ideal philosopher would tell you to live well and make your own choices because you want to with a general concept of morality in mind. yay!
my ideal philosopher would combine the elements of Plato, Sartre and Lao Tzu. Having the powers of Sartre allowing everyone to live how they want rather than on how people expect them to and by being responsible for ones own actions seems like an essential quality to have. Also, by having the "force" of Lao Tzu, it would my allow my super philosopher to have a quality/spiritual/trippy day dreaming session without necessarly having to use herbs all the time. :)
My super philosopher would be empiricist based like that of Hume and Ayer, would have have Sartre's ideas of human responsibilty in the world, have Kant's ideas of moral laws binding all humans, would write in the same abstract way as Lao Tze and would probably wear a cape. I think the empircist aspect is important so that a philosopher does not just view the world from an arm chair the way Descartes did. Sartre's idea of human responisibility prevents the possibility of people being able to blame events or actions on the will of god, making people completely respomsible for thier actions. Kant's ideas also add to this as he sets out that people must act in a way that it would be okay for all people to act the same, making every individual accountable to their actions. The Loa Tze aspect is just because it makes for an interesting way to read philosophy instead of the way that most western philosophers write. My superphilosopher could also write in plays too because that would be interesting as well. And i think I am also going to my superphilosopher female just for good measure.
my super philosopher would have Ayer's social (and sexual) life, Freud's wild pessimistic sexist ideas, Sartre's creative writing skills and Beethoven's musical skills, so that he can write a wacky philosophical/psycho sexual musical. wouldn't that be cool?
just joking. my real super philosopher would have Freud's belief in the unconscious (that made a big difference in both philosophy and psychology) but perhaps not such a big emphasis on eros and thanatos. he would also focus on science and be an empiricist like Hume and Ayer, except he wouldn't dismiss questions when he can't seem to find the answer like Ayer did. i'd also give him Sartre's writing skills, cos out of all the philosophers his stuff was the most interesting to read (regardless of the fact that i understood him the least). at least he tried to make it more interesting and appealing to the mass public.
the only guy i wouldnt include in there is Kant, he was just too optimistic. he's like a little kid inside who wanted to extend his imaginary perfect world onto the real world. life's a bitch Kant, get over it.
if possible i'd also like him to look like orlando bloom, have the sarcastic humor of hugh laurie in house, the sexy british accent of hugh grant and the cooking skills of jamie oliver.
my philosopher would be based on aristotle, because hitting the mean is a concept I find a very applicable to every day life. plus, I would want my philosopher to wear a toga, and I disagree with plato's whole Forms thing, so Aristotle it is. I might add a dash of lao-tsu for mystique. I would like to have the tao on my side, too, but not the dark side. I would want my philosopher to believe people were inherantly good, like locke, but that they were inherantly screwed up, like freud. Finally, I would allow my philosopher to have the angst and free choice of sartre, so he would have things to write songs about, and the ability to choose what philosophers to debate into submission. Descartes! You're first!
my super philosopher would also have sartre's eyes, kant's hair, hume's terrible looks, and freud's mother (foxy?). He would wear a kilt and a cape, both made entirely of purple velvet.
11 comments:
My super philosopher would have the respect for science and empiricism of Hume and Ayer, the good/free will of Kant, Freud's acceptance of raw human agression and sexual desires be the motivation for some of our acts, Sartre's responsibility for our actions and need to live through ourselves not through other people, also he would have wolverine's claws and superman's flying ability. I believe respect for science is crucial these days and cannot go unrecognized because it gives us facts we can choose to agree or not agree with using our senses. And if we didn't have senses what else would we have to make decisions about the world. The free will of Kant because I believe humans have the potential to be mostly good people through their actions even though maybe the unconscious desires sometimes drive us to do things we woudn't normally do like taking our anger out on somebody or something that doesn't deserve it. I think Sarttre definitely had the right idea in his theoryt hat we are entirely responsible for everything we do, we cannot blame a mistake we make on fate or wait for something amazing to happen because it's God's plan, we are the only ones responsible for making our lives what we want them to be. As for the claws and flying ability..those speak for themselves
My suoerphilosopher would be the most "realisticly truthful"
he would need to be empirical like hume beacause i dont really like the philisophical tradition of rationalism (descartes, plato) THAT FORGETS THAT WE ARE HUMAN AND SUBJECT TO A MATERAIL WORLD... we cannot have anything in our rational minds if it wasnt for our access to the materail world... we would be empty inside... the material world is vital for our exsistence and it makes us human by definition... so empiricism would be vital
descartes assertion of the cogito is extremely important in philoophy as the exsistentialists say... it proves that we exsist and at the same time all those around us assert it they exsist as well... rationalism is important because it is the most important thing that separates us from animals and so it would have to be included..
ive also realized a gap in the study of emotion- this is a second part of humanity that separates us from animals and it is extremely important because humans often act on it- most philosophers dont acknowledge it- i feel like someone needs to use empiricism and rationalism to find a place for emotion in the study of philosophy
freud's acknowledgement of human instinct is important because all humans have animalistic instincts as part of thier relation with the material world... it kind of acknowledges emotion but i feel he takes it to far because he forgets rationalism.... however it is a good argument against those who solely root for rationalism and i like that he identifies civilization and the social aspect of the world- more philosophers have to look at that
then theres ethics... i like kants idea of responsibility for our actions... but there are no universal ethics... like the exsistentialists say... life is what u make it... as long as we accept the responsibility of others that comes with this... i think ayer is wrong about it all being emotion though... its a little too serious a matter for that kind of assertion.... and i love thrasymachus' take on ethics- he is completely right and philosophers need to look more closely at it.... morals have been relative over history... to this day they are remenants of the stronger- the powerful catholic church.... as nichomachean ethics states- life is the pursuit of happiness (also freud) and as the exsistentialists say there really is no right and wrong... just as we take it in the situation....
and this is where the gaps of emotion and socialization should come in...
we know something is wrong because it hurts other ppl... we can feel it and so can they... that is the power of sympathy and empathy that all but psychopaths have.... but the question is- are we socialized to have emotion or did the emotion come first.... same with morals... noe thats a question worth asking... same with rationalism... after all- what we learn, what we do and what we feel is all in the context of civilization and society... all of the "state of nature" experiments where philosophers try to think of themselves in a state of nature without society cannot be really accurate because they just contemplate... as far as proof is concerened the only natural things about humans are thier instincts.... but humans live in society and so follow... thinking, emotion and morals... all affected by socialization.... and diffrent societies act diffrently toward those 3 things... especially as time as shown us... so we really have to look at that.... basically what is right is trying to make ourselves happy in a world where we always affect others... sometimes negatively.... is that our perogative? should we care? and if we should... why? were all stuck in this together after all... the problem is trying to be good in a world where many arent... i guess religion and the law are institutions which try to force the whole world to be good so that it makes sense for each of us to be good..... if we lived in a world of anarchy we would have to be more freudian and less rational... i guess everything is relative... and thats why exsistentialism is so important... in the end we should look at the context of the situation and act according to that... never forgetting the whole situation and humanity.....AND SO FOLLOWS WHAT A PERFECT PHILOSOPHER LOOKS LIKE....
Ok so they contemplate transcending reality like plato (unlike hume/ayer... who think phl is only good for the realistic... its also about thinking abstractly and contemplating too... but no life of the philospher bs... more like politics.. or a philosopher in action)- but they dont take it too far because it isnt realistic or provable.. they still pay attention to humans rationality and its power... but they like to prove things and give importance to the material world and reality and instinct- because we are human... also they take emotion into thought and other people... they know that ethics is relative but not in an anarchic way... they know we shouldnt harm others... they look at the world history and the future and use that to contemplate all... they are atheist (because god cant be proven) and their humanistic... like exsistentialists .... they acept the dignity and power of humanity, life, choice and freewill.... it would be good if they were omnipotent... it might help to get us answers quicker if they knoew everything... but i guess thats asking too much and it wouldnt really be phl if we had all the answers... oh yea... they have to be good writers and speak in a straightforward way so that normal humans could understand them... like plato,satre, freud and descartes kinds... not hume... if they were artistic- wrote plays and were in politics- preferably the president of the us that would be amazing... not to extremist and a little more on the exsistentialist way of thinking.... vwala- THE PERFECT PHILOSOPHER!!! lmao...
oh yea.... it would help if they looked like brad pitt (lol)... more ppl might listen and no kant 40 year old virgen stuff... if they travel the world and experience it and read A LOT of books they might be able to tell us more through experience and a lot of knowledge.... yea im asking to much... but you said the perfect philosopher... i had to be complete... lol
My super philosopher would be Sartre plus other elements. His basis would be Sartre because I like Sartre, who recognizes philosophy as a matter of day-to-day life, and calls for responsibility of all human beings in choosing everything about you and your life, regardless of God’s existence. I think that human beings are at least to some extent rational, but also think that we are driven by our instincts at the bottom. So I would add Freud’s thoughts that we are driven by our instinctual drives, and we are unconscious of our motives. I would add the theory that considers mathematics as the truth, suggested by Hume, Ayer and Descartes, for it seems that I can’t oppose it in order to explain what is true and what is not. Though I think Sartre does not believe in the ideal society which Plato suggested, and I don’t think it is possible in the real world, I just liked Plato’s idea of a philosopher as a political figure, who come down to the cave and tells us what the Sun is like, so I add it too. My super philosopher might look strange and does seem to be contradicted, but I guess it doesn’t matter; he is a Super Philosopher…: )
hmmm my super philosopher would be aristokantartre. that would be aristotle, kant, and sartre. i love aristotles idea of man being social and it being important to hit the mean in good qualities. i think his idea of being a eudaimon is great which is just striving to live and fare well and reach a position where you can take time out to comtemplate. i like alot of kantian ethics and i think the concept of doing things that it would be ohkay if everyone in the world was doing it is very sound. i personally dont believe you do anything without an intent to serve you, even if you are techinically gonig against your desires. and that where i liek sartre, because he takes into account that in the end, what we do is done because we felt the inclination to do it. and the fact that we did it, means we wanted to do it. so my ideal philosopher would tell you to live well and make your own choices because you want to with a general concept of morality in mind. yay!
wow, really should have spell checked that comment. my bad!
my ideal philosopher would combine the elements of Plato, Sartre and Lao Tzu. Having the powers of Sartre allowing everyone to live how they want rather than on how people expect them to and by being responsible for ones own actions seems like an essential quality to have. Also, by having the "force" of Lao Tzu, it would my allow my super philosopher to have a quality/spiritual/trippy day dreaming session without necessarly having to use herbs all the time. :)
My super philosopher would be empiricist based like that of Hume and Ayer, would have have Sartre's ideas of human responsibilty in the world, have Kant's ideas of moral laws binding all humans, would write in the same abstract way as Lao Tze and would probably wear a cape. I think the empircist aspect is important so that a philosopher does not just view the world from an arm chair the way Descartes did. Sartre's idea of human responisibility prevents the possibility of people being able to blame events or actions on the will of god, making people completely respomsible for thier actions. Kant's ideas also add to this as he sets out that people must act in a way that it would be okay for all people to act the same, making every individual accountable to their actions. The Loa Tze aspect is just because it makes for an interesting way to read philosophy instead of the way that most western philosophers write. My superphilosopher could also write in plays too because that would be interesting as well. And i think I am also going to my superphilosopher female just for good measure.
my super philosopher would have Ayer's social (and sexual) life, Freud's wild pessimistic sexist ideas, Sartre's creative writing skills and Beethoven's musical skills, so that he can write a wacky philosophical/psycho sexual musical. wouldn't that be cool?
just joking. my real super philosopher would have Freud's belief in the unconscious (that made a big difference in both philosophy and psychology) but perhaps not such a big emphasis on eros and thanatos. he would also focus on science and be an empiricist like Hume and Ayer, except he wouldn't dismiss questions when he can't seem to find the answer like Ayer did. i'd also give him Sartre's writing skills, cos out of all the philosophers his stuff was the most interesting to read (regardless of the fact that i understood him the least). at least he tried to make it more interesting and appealing to the mass public.
the only guy i wouldnt include in there is Kant, he was just too optimistic. he's like a little kid inside who wanted to extend his imaginary perfect world onto the real world. life's a bitch Kant, get over it.
if possible i'd also like him to look like orlando bloom, have the sarcastic humor of hugh laurie in house, the sexy british accent of hugh grant and the cooking skills of jamie oliver.
my philosopher would be based on aristotle, because hitting the mean is a concept I find a very applicable to every day life. plus, I would want my philosopher to wear a toga, and I disagree with plato's whole Forms thing, so Aristotle it is.
I might add a dash of lao-tsu for mystique. I would like to have the tao on my side, too, but not the dark side.
I would want my philosopher to believe people were inherantly good, like locke, but that they were inherantly screwed up, like freud.
Finally, I would allow my philosopher to have the angst and free choice of sartre, so he would have things to write songs about, and the ability to choose what philosophers to debate into submission.
Descartes! You're first!
my super philosopher would also have sartre's eyes, kant's hair, hume's terrible looks, and freud's mother (foxy?). He would wear a kilt and a cape, both made entirely of purple velvet.
Post a Comment