Hey gents!
I have a biographical philosophy paper due at the end of the month but am not sure upon who to write about. I’m sure my teacher has graded a bazillion reports on Nietzsche, Sartre etc, but I was looking for an unsung hero of philosophy who has something good to say…
and suggestions would be appreciated!
Bertrand Russell all the way. Never get tired or disenchanted with his work and it still is relevant unlike that of many other famous philosophers.
A contemporary philosopher whose work is good too is Daniel Dennett.
Russell’s my favourite philosopher to be honest. Well he was the first to introduce me to the field and I have been biased ever since.
Use this paper I wrote 6 years ago for college (where I did Computer Science and also Philosophy). About Nietzsche and Achebe, an African philosopher.
My favorite is, Jean Baudrillard.
then you have the old stand bys, Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Émile Durkheim (his theory of Anome is particularly relevent today.)
Late,
grmpysmrf
A great article by B. Russell is ‘An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish’ (though not necessarily the best representation of his philosophical prowess, it is an archetype in critical thinking)
Here’s an excerpt:
'I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious- for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: “Oh, but you forget the good God.” Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious."
I’ve been scraping pennies to collect some readings over the past few months and Russell’s autobiography (there are volumes, it is quite large) is at the top. Has anyone read the autobiography? If so, spill.
Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Émile Durkheim
Someone has studied Sociology. I’ve been there man.
Of those 3 I’d go with Weber as the most relevant. Mark has been made somewhat redundant over the past few decades, mainly because he completely missed technology as a major agent of change.
Jean Baudrillard.
Didn’t that guy deny the Gulf War ever existed? Although as far as I can remember he disliked being labelled a post structuralist/post modernist, but he is still identified as one of the most important figures in that “movement”… Personally, I cannot stand postmodernism. Above all the inherent weaknesses of that field/school the one major issue that they consistently ignore is human agency, the ability of a person to identify and reject the bullshit that they may be subjected to.
Its ridiculous to have a ‘favorite’ philosopher. With this said, most of the stuff I’ve written over the last few years of studying had something to do with Gilles Deleuze.
[reply]Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Émile Durkheim
Someone has studied Sociology. I’ve been there man.[/reply]
That’s what my B.A. is in
Jean Baudrillard.
Didn’t that guy deny the Gulf War ever existed? Although as far as I can remember he disliked being labelled a post structuralist/post modernist, but he is still identified as one of the most important figures in that “movement”… Personally, I cannot stand postmodernism. Above all the inherent weaknesses of that field/school the one major issue that they consistently ignore is human agency, the ability of a person to identify and reject the bullshit that they may be subjected to.[/reply]
I don’t know about all of that, what with the gulf war, but I do like his theories about how our real socities are based on make believe. specifically, television the biggest make believe society has taken over real life ( obviosuly this theory has been oversimplified by me for the sake of ease of understanding)
Late,
grmpysmrf
its not make believe, its a simulacrum. Its loosely based on reality, at least at first, but then it is just a simulacrum. He goes even further and claims that the ‘real’ reality no longer exists and this is where the whole gulf war statement comes from. According to him the war was a simulacrum of a war as presented by the media.
I do like his theories about how our real socities are based on make believe. specifically, television the biggest make believe society has taken over real life
That’s the ‘Hyper-reality’ thing is it? Vicarious living.
Although television has permitted a much greater propensity for this sort of stuff, I think people wanting to live like what they see/hear/read from others has been around before the advent of television. It’s a facet of human nature (or at least to some cultures) moreso than a recent phenomenon. For example, the ‘tragedy’ has been popular for hundreds of years. Tragedy is something many people are attracted to as it inspired sympathy (at least it is intended to). For adults, “happy” stories are less appealing as they are most likely to inspire envy, begrudgery or simply boredom. Some people make a living out of inventing tragedy; artificial, contrived, “pseudo” tragedy.
Oh we could go on for hours…
its not make believe, its a simulacrum. Its loosely based on reality, at least at first, but then it is just a simulacrum. He goes even further and claims that the ‘real’ reality no longer exists and this is where the whole gulf war statement comes from. According to him the war was a simulacrum of a war as presented by the media.
I didn’t know he applied it to the gulf war but yeah that is a great synopsis of the simulacrum
[reply]I do like his theories about how our real socities are based on make believe. specifically, television the biggest make believe society has taken over real life
That’s the ‘Hyper-reality’ thing is it? Vicarious living.[/reply]
yes, and the vicarious living becomes the “real living” so peoples actions aren’t necessarly genuine but simulations of genuine actions. And it becomes a distorted mess of simulation and reality.
Although television has permitted a much greater propensity for this sort of stuff, I think people wanting to live like what they see/hear/read from others has been around before the advent of television. It’s a facet of human nature (or at least to some cultures) moreso than a recent phenomenon. For example, the ‘tragedy’ has been popular for hundreds of years. Tragedy is something many people are attracted to as it inspired sympathy (at least it is intended to). For adults, “happy” stories are less appealing as they are most likely to inspire envy, begrudgery or simply boredom. Some people make a living out of inventing tragedy; artificial, contrived, “pseudo” tragedy.
yes
Oh we could go on for hours…
yes
I’m quite partial to the existentialists: Heidegger, Kant, Neitzche, Kierkegard, Buber…
afra, thanks for your paper.
i think the philosophers working now need some politics (current) in their blood. it’s a reference point.
listening to NPR yesterday(?) they were talking about a class at the university of chicago which is a history class on pirates. how much more can you think philosophically about why people choose to do the shit they do than that. pirates.
why don’t i live in chicago anymore.
Hey gents!
I have a biographical philosophy paper due at the end of the month but am not sure upon who to write about. I’m sure my teacher has graded a bazillion reports on Nietzsche, Sartre etc, but I was looking for an unsung hero of philosophy who has something good to say…
and suggestions would be appreciated!
I was searching for my “reality is a simulation” post and I ran back across this… how’d your report go?
Who’d you pick?
What grade did it get?
Late,
grmpysmrf