Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And here I was thinking Drogue and myself were the undisputed master of long posts....

Originally posted by BeBro
Then you never read a longer philosophy thread where Berz posted in.

Noobs

Actually, Archaic, Pande and myself have had longer ones than any I've seen here. Many hit 500 posts, most posts were at least 10 pages on word. We had some huge arguments back in ACDGI. A pity Pande hasn't been sighted for a while

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


Welcome to the OT Boris. You gotta make or break your argument in a few sentences. If you can't then, well, you probably shouldn't be discussing long drawn out topics in a forum.

I'm sure you'll accuse me of being pretentious... but I do try as hard as hell to always respond directly and logically to the other's arguments. Everytime I see a long post, I ask: what is the thesis? what are the arguments? What is the conclusion? and are the arguments supported by either checkable or widely accepted facts?

In other words, I assume the other's role to make sure I fully understand his point. It seems to me that most, even in philosophy departments, won't do that. Ergo the need to discuss in a lively fashion, to have a kind of "dialectic" discussion, in which we proceed by partial agreements to achieve a 'grand' synthesis- oftentimes different from both initial thesis.

Would the Great Agathon agree with me?

[Kuciwalker]

"Great Agathon"

Seriously, EVERYONE ELSE manages to convery their point quite well without the extra crap you stick in.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
"Great Agathon"

Shuddup. I need all the help I can get.

I like his point about dialectic though, very Hegelian.

[Berzerker]

What was your "thesis" UBoris?

1) Bastiat's opposition to plunder, legal or illegal, is "flawed" because we can't fix all the past plunder. That's like saying it's "flawed" to oppose murder because we can't solve all past murders.

2) Bastiat's opposition to plunder, legal or illegal, is "flawed" because UBoris sees plenty of ways to spend other people's money and needs the state to get it. Yeah, that proves Bastiat wrong.

3) If you agree to work for a paycheck, your labor has been "abused and plundered" and your opinion doesn't matter because UBoris has identified you as a victim.

4) Past plunder, which UBoris decries, justifies future plunder by UBoris and his comrades.

Sorry folks if my last post was too long, but I was responding to a long post and UBoris is in the habit of posting several paragraphs of Marxist drivel before addressing my arguments.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shuddup. I need all the help I can get.

And, Berz... it's 'fakeboris'!

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Sorry folks if my last post was too long, but I was responding to a long post and UBoris is in the habit of posting several paragraphs of Marxist drivel before addressing my arguments.

Don't worry about it. Your response was mostly a few sentences responding to his long drawn out conclusions.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
On several topics, like women, Nietzsche is a bastard, and usually wrong. In fact, most of his solutions I found terrible. BUt like Imran, his analysis is deeply original-
I personally can see why facists would pick up on the Will to Power poritons of Nietzsche, but a simple translation of what he said on nationalism, the state, and anti-semitism shows that he shared almost nothing with right-wing nationalist ideology. He hated the state- he would have reviled the notion of slavishly following a "Fuhrer", of mythologizing any ideology without thought, so forth an so on. For me, most people who call him an anti-semite never read most of his works. My bet is most nazi types read Zarathustra and Will to Power, which his anti-semitic right wing suster edited after his death, and little else in his books.

I think you are looking at Nietzsche with rose colored glasses. Anyways you are misinterpreting the comparison, Nietzsche wasn't a cookie cutter Nazi, his books weren't proto-Mein Kampfs, I'm not saying that at all. I imagine though, had he not gone crazy and died before Hitler came around, he'd be a supporter. But that is irrelevant. I'm not making my point based on anti-semitism, or nationalism, or anything like that.

He hated the state- he would have reviled the notion of slavishly following a "Fuhrer", of mythologizing any ideology without thought, so forth an so on.

I'm not so sure about this. I don't know what he thought about the state, but I'm thinking instead about Hitler as the ideal representation of Nietzsche's ubermench. He praised the will to power, absolute power, which Hitler certainly had. From what I remember of Nietzsche, it isn't just about power itself, but the recognition of that power. He urged praise for power and strength. Instead of looking down on an arrogant, powerful, strong person,we should reserve our highest praise and honor for him. Hitler had that ultimate power Nietzsche so desired, so he should have the ultimate praise and honor in that society. Anything other than slavishly following the Fuhrer jeopardizes the Fuhrer's will to power.

To anticipate your point, you no doubt are arguing that Nietzsche's advice was general and directed to no one specifically. Thus all people should strive for power, and to excel, and that when one does this there can be no strict Nazi like state. Perhaps, but this would make Nietzsche a hypocrite. He certainly did not believe in equality between people, in any sense. The notion of equality is in direct contrast with the pure will to power. Your power jeopardizes my power, thus the best way for me to be powerful is to diminish your power. Nietzsche was not an egalitarian philosopher, you delude yourself to believe so.

Again, I'm not saying Nietzsche is calling for anti-semitism, or german nationalism, I'm sure he wouldn't care one way or the other. My beef with him is the very fact that he wouldn't care. Power is all that matters, how that power is attained is inconsequential. If absolute power can be attained through scapegoating and slaugtering an ethnic minority and then building a war machine to destroy your neighbors, then so be it, I'm sure Nietzsche wouldn't have a problem with it.

Plus if you through in the Nazi actions of ethnic clensing to produce a superior race of humans through extermination of lesser races, selection of higher people and so on, I think they match up quite nicely. Not to say Nietzsche is necessarily in favor of German superiority. Any nation who tried something like Nazism would probably be ok in Nietzsche's book.

To summarize, its not that Nietzsche calls for murder, oppression, and genocide, but rather that he is entirely indifferent about it is a big reason that drives me to despise Nietzsche and all he stood for.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What was your "thesis" UBoris?

1) Bastiat's opposition to plunder, legal or illegal, is "flawed" because we can't fix all the past plunder. That's like saying it's "flawed" to oppose murder because we can't solve all past murders.

2) Bastiat's opposition to plunder, legal or illegal, is "flawed" because UBoris sees plenty of ways to spend other people's money and needs the state to get it. Yeah, that proves Bastiat wrong.

3) If you agree to work for a paycheck, your labor has been "abused and plundered" and your opinion doesn't matter because UBoris has identified you as a victim.

4) Past plunder, which UBoris decries, justifies future plunder by UBoris and his comrades.

Sorry folks if my last post was too long, but I was responding to a long post and UBoris is in the habit of posting several paragraphs of Marxist drivel before addressing my arguments.

In his natural state, it is impossible for a man not to get what he needs to live, as long as he works for it.

Put a man on a desert island. Is he still a man? Yes. Does he have any property? No. All his work only relates to mere 'possesion'- the physical state required to benefit from the fruit of your labor, ie. holding an apple and bringing it to your mouth.

Property is a contract, a concept invented by society. There is no such thing as property for animals, and there couldn't be to a man living alone. Property defines the inanimate object's relationship towards a certain number of animate subjects- the humans.

Technology has greatly increased production; but property of technology has also decreased the extent of its redistribution. Technology, by creating inanimate means of production- those that are not natural to the body, has made it possible to those who hold it to enslave the others who don't. To this end, they enacted the idea of 'property' into the law (in fact property is probably the first law to appear), with the goal to confirm the power they had gained, with the help of a contract.

How could they have done this? Two possible ways.
1. With the appearance of the scarcity of ressources, which in turn instilled the fear to starve in our minds. Because at this point, the work required for being fed also started to imply competition with other humans about control of resources. This control could only be achieved by the physically stronger.
2. The appearance of technology and society gave humans new sentiments: pride and shame. Pride of being stronger, and shame of being weaker. With technology, currency, storage, etc, it was then possible for someone to accumulate more material than required for his survival. This is what we call pride, because this wealth could define his role in the society. (And his property of means of production also meant he could even more increase this wealth).

So basically, property is a contract by which the weak agree by compromise to recognize someone else's 'possession' as permanent and inalienable. In return, their fear to starve is compensated by the promise that they would get a share of the production. However, by accepting property they gave the possibility to those who held it to increase artificially the scarcity of resources- because it is through the efficient use of your property and money that you can buy more land and hire more peons, and have a stronghand in deciding what will be the worker's share.

Property is not necessary to one's survival. Only possession is. Therefore, property has been acquired by force, by those who were either physically stronger or technologically astute, who in turn had been driven by either pride or the scarcity of resources. When property came to be part of the law, it was a legitimation of past plunders; and the subsequent wealth enjoyed by the landlords was used to raise armies to enforce even more strongly this property. Property is a refined form of plunder made possible by everyone's fundamental fears, which encourages us to abide by the owners of the means of production, since it is the most simple and less dangerous thing to do in order to live.

Look at the world today. There are many, many more goods produced than what will ever be required. Yet, people who are working can not even get food, shelter, drinking water and basic medications, because property is not fairly distributed. Productivity has increased thousand-fold, but inequalities have by a two thousand-fold. This is a direct consequence of plundering in its most "legitimate" form- ownership of the means of production. How could you possibly consider renting one's workforce at a price lower than what he would get in his state of 'nature' to be something else than plundering? Once 'nature' has been denied, either by pride or scarcity, there is no going back, mainly because the power gained by the oligarchs is 'inalienable'. The only thing we can do is remember them that property is a PRIVILEGE that we granted them by contract, and that the counterpart to it is Social-Democracy. Failure to accept this can result in a war, made legitimate by 'breach of contract'.

PS: I find it ironic that you believe a starving worker is free in his choice to work for Nike. Following your logic, wouldn't a citizen be free in his choice of a State that will not 'plunder' him, independantly of constraints such as moving costs (if starvation is not a constraint for you, then the cost of moving or the brutal enforcement of the law must not be neither)?

[Fake Boris]

Ozzy, you've got it all wrong.

Nietzsche IS NOT about physical, worthless power. Those undergoing such objectives are PASSIVE NIHILISTS- the epithome of the untermenschel.

[Fake Boris]

BeBro:

Originally posted by BeBro
BTW could you guys include some - in your eyes - "must-read" books of your favourite philo heroes?

That would be interesting to me, since I´m mostly read German philosophers until now , Kant, Hegel etc. But what exactly should I read from the others? Most of them surely have written a lot. Any recommendations would be nice

If you have not done it already, Rousseau is strongly recommended.
Roland Barthes is not a true philosopher, but his works on mythology are simply astounding.
I am in the process of reading Lyotard, and I can tell you his thoughts on post-modernism are brilliant.

Hope the suggestions will help your personal development, bla bla.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
My favorite philosopher is Comrade Tassadar

[Imran Siddiqui]

Productivity has increased thousand-fold, but inequalities have by a two thousand-fold.

Not to get involved in the entire debate here, but this statement: bull****!

If you seriously think that ancient Rome has lesser inequalities than the modern capitalist state, you seriously need to catch up on history.

Anything other than slavishly following the Fuhrer jeopardizes the Fuhrer's will to power.

And HERE you have utterly misinterpreted FN. Those who slavishly follow are worthy of utter contempt for they have become the herd! The most despicable thing to FN is being a sheep, following even a powerful person. Everyone, instead, should strive for their own personal freedom from traditional morality (ie, real power).

Your power jeopardizes my power, thus the best way for me to be powerful is to diminish your power.

If absolute power can be attained through scapegoating and slaugtering an ethnic minority and then building a war machine to destroy your neighbors, then so be it, I'm sure Nietzsche wouldn't have a problem with it.

You misunderstand what the will to power is. O.B. is correct. Power is more freedom from the morality which has been placed on society by the powerful. The Ubermench are those that look beyond morality and think about things for themselves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW could you guys include some - in your eyes - "must-read" books of your favourite philo heroes?

"Beyond Good and Evil" By Nietszche is something which I recommend.

Since Marx is German, I assume you've read him. Engles' "Scientific Socialism" is something which has been overlooked, but is a very nice pamplet-type work.

"Leviathan" by Hobbes and "Two Treatises on Government" by Locke are two basics of modern English philosophy.

"Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke is a GREAT work describing what 'modern conservatism' is (ie, slow gradual progress, realizing that tradition is the accumlated knowledge of history... ie, the anti-Nietzsche in that respect ).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Productivity has increased thousand-fold, but inequalities have by a two thousand-fold.

Not to get involved in the entire debate here, but this statement: bull****!

I want to make it clear: I am talking about the state of nature, (as in all philosophers of the 'anthropologic' tradition), which the Romans were far from being into!