# Your favourite philosopher?



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Who is your favourite philosopher?

As you can probably tell, mine is Frederich Nietzsche.

Why not show your support for the greatest minds in history, by posting one of their pictures!


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

I don't have a stash of philosopher pictures...

Now, on three!

1....

2....

3....

The Philosophers' Drinking Song

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

its a tossup between Will Rogers and Mark Twain.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Who is your favourite philosopher?
> 
> As you can probably tell, mine is Frederich Nietzsche.
> 
> Why not show your support for the greatest minds in history, by posting one of their pictures!


Nietzsche scared me. One can definitely see the relationship between the ubermensch and the Third Reich.

In addition to Kant, I always favored Aristotle and Acquinas.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

a tailor said:


> its a tossup between Will Rogers and Mark Twain.


Excellent choices, two of my favorites. Having said that, can I suggest a third to whom history I believe will be very kind (don't laugh); the late George Carlin. Some examples of Mr. Carlin's take on things:

_By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. 
_
_Dusting is a good example of the futility of trying to put things right. As soon as you dust, the fact of your next dusting has already been established. _

_Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac? _

_I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it. _

_I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose. 
_
_I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death._

_If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten._

_Most people work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit. 
_
_People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think. _

_Just cause you got the monkey off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town._

_Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that. 
_
_Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? 
_
Cruiser


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Nietzsche scared me. One can definitely see the relationship between the ubermensch and the Third Reich....


Anyone who has read even a word of Nietzsche's would know that there is nothing he would have been more opposed to than even the very thought of the Third Reich.

Sir, you embarrass yourself by attempting to perpetuate such a well-known mis-truth.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Some examples of Mr. Carlin's take on things:
> ...
> Cruiser


Brilliant quotes! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Anyone who has read even a word of Nietzsche's would know that there is nothing he would have been more opposed to than even the very thought of the Third Reich.
> 
> Sir, you embarrass yourself by attempting to perpetuate such a well-known mis-truth.


Perhaps he does, but it is a documented fact that Nietzsche was idolized by murderers Leopold and Loeb, and they rationalized their various crimes by his theories on Man and Superman.

JM


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Calvin and Hobbes--of the daily comics fame.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

JosephM said:


> Perhaps he does, but it is a documented fact that Nietzsche was idolized by murderers Leopold and Loeb, and they rationalized their various crimes by his theories on Man and Superman.


Many people have also slaughtered in the name of Jesus.

Would it therefore be logical or reasonable to suggest that wanton murder was a matter which Christ encouraged, too?


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Many people have also slaughtered in the name of Jesus.
> 
> Would it therefore be logical or reasonable to suggest that wanton murder was a matter which Christ encouraged, too?


That is "twisted logic," Sir. It is not reasonable to equate the Holy Wars to the murder in cold blood committed by two college students that they rationalized by the writings of Nietzsche.

Your statement is _not_ a logical comparison.

JM


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

smujd said:


> Calvin and Hobbes--of the daily comics fame.


Best comic strip ever.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

JosephM said:


> ...
> Your statement is _not_ a logical comparison.


Thank you, Sir. I believe I stand corrected.

Of course, the point of my statement is entirely logical: That anyone can do anything they like and claim to have been inspired by another. As we have seen throughout the course of history in my different and equally credible ways.

Have you ever read Thus Spoke Zarathustra? I would be very interested to hear about your views on it, if you have.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

I am also a big fan of Lord John Dalberg-Acton.

Check out some of these pearls:



> The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.
> 
> Learn as much by writing as by reading.
> 
> ...


:aportnoy:


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Have you ever read Thus Spoke Zarathustra? I would be very interested to hear about your views on it, if you have.


I have not, but I will certainly look into it and report back my input to you. _Thank you_ for recommending it! :icon_smile:

JM


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

As an avowed hedonist, I'm not sure if it suits my lifestyle to contemplate philosophy. It's all about the simplistic seeking of gratification, whether short-term or long-term.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Who is your favourite philosopher?


Conan the Barbarian:aportnoy:


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Marx...Groucho.


----------



## Thermactor (Feb 8, 2009)

Andy Gilchrist :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

I would like to understand Rudolf Steiner, who is mentioned in the first footnote of Walter Kaufmann's book on Nietzsche. The existing English and French translations show me how important the original German texts are and the Goethe Institute is reputed to offer good introduction.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

JosephM said:


> I have not, but I will certainly look into it and report back my input to you. _Thank you_ for recommending it! :icon_smile:


Thank you, Sir. I am sure you will see that anyone who claims to kill in the name of Nietzsche's Ubermensch ideology would have completely misunderstood the fundamental tenets of his sceptically optimistic philosophy.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> As an avowed hedonist, I'm not sure if it suits my lifestyle to contemplate philosophy. It's all about the simplistic seeking of gratification, whether short-term or long-term.


I would recommend that you check out Jeremy Bentham, then. Arguably one of the most important philosophers, and hedonists, in modern history!


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Thank you, Sir. I am sure you will see that anyone who claims to kill in the name of Nietzsche's Ubermensch ideology would have completely misunderstood the fundamental tenets of his sceptically optimistic philosophy.


I will certainly read the book. However, I fear that this could very well lead to a discussion of "correct" versus "incorrect" interpretations of a philosopher's ideology. In the past, I have found such discussions to be largely non-productive, as it is quite simple to argue opposing points of view that are "substantiated" by the philosopher's text.

JM


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 24, 2008)

Peter Berger, the forefather of social constructionist theories of religion.

Voltaire is a close second.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Bergson & Deleuze


----------



## Persephone (Jul 17, 2008)

*Immanuel Kant*

I can still recite Kant's "Categorical Imperative" by heart.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Persephone said:


> I can still recite Kant's "Categorical Imperative" by heart.


Auf Deutsch?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

radix023 said:


> I don't have a stash of philosopher pictures...
> 
> Now, on three!
> 
> ...


+1!!!!!!


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

What is Mr Pipps' logical mistake?


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

Don't you think a translation would be more interesting than recitation?


----------



## QuestForReason (Jan 9, 2009)

Though I respect Nietzsche's body of work and extremely beautiful style of writing, he is a favorite of neophytes for obvious reasons. His arguments are not based in the same rational deduction that a 'philosopher's philosopher' would employ. The Anti-Christ, is little more than a pamphlet denouncing Christianity on artistic grounds by means of rhetoric; Zarathustra--though amazing in scope--reads too much like a self help book for the pretentious and alienated. For this reason, he is extremely enjoyable and accessible. However, when his thought is placed within the scheme of philosophy, and to a more specific degree, German philosophy, Nietzsche falls short. I would much prefer to sit down with Kant or Fichte, perhaps even Hegel. These men created philosophical systems. Even though I consider Idealism--as a response to rationalism and empiricism a failure--they definitely furthered metaphysical and epistemological thought.

All that being said, I enjoy Nietzsche and Schopenhauer for their passion and eloquence; I just can't place them in the same circle as the real philosophers.

He's still leaps and bounds better than the post-modernists. :icon_smile:


----------



## TimJoe (Mar 2, 2009)

Easy: Snoopy!


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Myself


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Anyone who has read even a word of Nietzsche's would know that there is nothing he would have been more opposed to than even the very thought of the Third Reich.
> 
> Sir, you embarrass yourself by attempting to perpetuate such a well-known mis-truth.


LOL. Sure, I agree that he would have opposed the Third Reich, but that isn't what I said. The fact is that while he undoubtably would have opposed this abuse of his literature, the abuse does nonetheless bear a logical relationship. Presumably you disagree, but you, sir, would embarrasss yourself by doing so.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

For the record, I believe Nietzsche viewed the Nazis as fulfilling a necessary demand, a demand for an oppressor, a ruler over the, ahem, "masses." Hitler actually interpreted this idea as a certain prophecy that he, Hitler, himself would fulfill. However, Nietzsche, of course, recognized that there will always be a need for a ruler, an oppressor, over the masses; how this need unfolds will always come differently. The Third Reich was convenient in the sense that it played into his (Nietzsche's) thinking, not the other way around. It takes a high level of though t to "remove" oneself from the current events going around him/her. I don't mean to say that by removing oneself from current events, one will be connected to unwaivering, timeless absolutes. I simply mean that one will view what is happening from a different perspective. Several times I have made reference to this philosopher in my Interchange posts, if anyone is interested. While he is a very interesting person, however, I have my worries, worries that I won't discuss here, with his thinking. It has nothing to do with his non-epistemological, non-analytical approaches. He doesn't go far enough, he takes too many things for granted.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

If I could attend a talk by any contemporary philosopher, it would be Martha Nussbaum, because I would like to see the fireworks go off during the Q&A, when relativists start questioning her deep establishment in universality. :devil:


----------



## Dr. François (Sep 14, 2008)

Roland Barthes, the French semiologist and cultural theorist.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*philosophers*

The Stoics. Epictitus.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> For the record, I believe Nietzsche viewed the Nazis as fulfilling a necessary demand, a demand for an oppressor, a ruler over the, ahem, "masses." Hitler actually interpreted this idea as a certain prophecy that he, Hitler, himself would fulfill. However, Nietzsche, of course, recognized that there will always be a need for a ruler, an oppressor, over the masses; how this need unfolds will always come differently. The Third Reich was convenient in the sense that it played into his (Nietzsche's) thinking, not the other way around. It takes a high level of though t to "remove" oneself from the current events going around him/her. I don't mean to say that by removing oneself from current events, one will be connected to unwaivering, timeless absolutes. I simply mean that one will view what is happening from a different perspective. Several times I have made reference to this philosopher in my Interchange posts, if anyone is interested. While he is a very interesting person, however, I have my worries, worries that I won't discuss here, with his thinking. It has nothing to do with his non-epistemological, non-analytical approaches. He doesn't go far enough, he takes too many things for granted.


Except Freddy kicked the bucket when lil'Adolf was only 11.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Thermactor said:


> Andy Gilchrist :icon_smile_big:


suck up! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

My Mother.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

JosephM said:


> I will certainly read the book. However, I fear that this could very well lead to a discussion of "correct" versus "incorrect" interpretations of a philosopher's ideology. In the past, I have found such discussions to be largely non-productive, as it is quite simple to argue opposing points of view that are "substantiated" by the philosopher's text.


Very true, Sir. It was also largely unproductive for you to denigrate the name of one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century with a regurgitation of a tabloid folk tale which anyone with an education knows is a lie. But then, that didn't stop you, did it.

If you would prefer to not read the philosopher's work for yourself and have the opportunity to make up your own mind on the subject, then you are of course free to continue to believe what your favourite scare-mongers will tell you.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Nietzsche scared me. One can definitely see the relationship between the ubermensch and the Third Reich...


Ah Acquinas, the darling of the catholic church. Far easier to swallow 'natural-law', than to actually think for yourself.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

misterdonuts said:


> Except Freddy kicked the bucket when lil'Adolf was only 11.


Quite right, Sir! Not to mention that his writings were heavily edited after his death before the Adolf could use them, but let's let that stop our scare-monger friends from enjoying their own version of world history.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

QuestForReason said:


> Though I respect Nietzsche's body of work...
> 
> All that being said, I enjoy Nietzsche and Schopenhauer for their passion and eloquence; I just can't place them in the same circle as the real philosophers.
> 
> He's still leaps and bounds better than the post-modernists. :icon_smile:


Sir, I am very interested in your views on this subject. And thank you for expounding upon them with such kind eloquence of your own.

Could there be a case to say that there are two categories of philosopher in the modern world?

What do you think of Hume? :icon_smile:


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Ah Acquinas, the darling of the catholic church. Far easier to swallow 'natural-law', than to actually think for yourself.


So Nietsche merits defending, but Catholics are fair game to slander?


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Very true, Sir. It was also largely unproductive for you to denigrate the name of one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century with a regurgitation of a tabloid folk tale which anyone with an education knows is a lie. But then, that didn't stop you, did it.


Jeepers, do you ever give it a rest? After I reviewed the musical _Thrill Me: The Leopold and Loeb Story_, I got quite interested in the murderers' story and read every authoritative work on the subject. They _all_ state that it was the readings of Nietzsche which inspired the two to murder in cold blood for sheer sport, because they were "Supermen," as defined by the philosopher.



Mr. Pipps said:


> If you would prefer to not read the philosopher's work for yourself and have the opportunity to make up your own mind on the subject, then you are of course free to continue to believe what your favourite scare-mongers will tell you.


Now you're shoveling words in my mouth. I _never_ said I wouldn't read the book. What I _did_ say was:

_"I will certainly read the book. However, I fear that this could very well lead to a discussion of "correct" versus "incorrect" interpretations of a philosopher's ideology. In the past, I have found such discussions to be largely non-productive, as it is quite simple to argue opposing points of view that are "substantiated" by the philosopher's text._"

Did you really think I would let you get away with such cheap tactics?

JM


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

radix023 said:


> So Nietsche merits defending, but Catholics are fair game to slander?


Very consistent when you think about it.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

JosephM said:


> They _all_ state that it was the readings of Nietzsche which inspired the two to murder in cold blood for sheer sport, because they were "Supermen," as defined by the philosopher.


The problem here is that you are speaking outside of your sphere of knowledge.

Firstly, do you even know anything about the Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensh?

I ask in rhetoric, because of course if you did, you would not be taken in by such absurd claims, that murder in cold blood could possibly be inspired by such a philosophy.

Yet you continue to defend a position which you clearly do not understand.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

radix023 said:


> So Nietsche merits defending, but Catholics are fair game to slander?


Well you haven't attempted to defend them, so you would appear to have answered that yourself.


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> The problem here is that you are speaking outside of your sphere of knowledge.
> 
> Firstly, do you even know anything about the Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensh?
> 
> ...


As I've posted _twice_ now, I have relied on several highly credible works on Leopold and Leob. That is good enough for me.

Your mileage, of course, may vary. I am done with you in this thread.

JM


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> The problem here is that you are speaking outside of your sphere of knowledge.
> 
> Firstly, do you even know anything about the Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensh?
> 
> ...


All is clear now. Pipps is the ubermensch.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Well you haven't attempted to defend them, so you would appear to have answered that yourself.


plonk!


----------



## QuestForReason (Jan 9, 2009)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Sir, I am very interested in your views on this subject. And thank you for expounding upon them with such kind eloquence of your own.
> 
> Could there be a case to say that there are two categories of philosopher in the modern world?
> 
> What do you think of Hume? :icon_smile:


There has always been a subjective distinction between philosophers. I have always found thinkers such as Nietzsche, Camus, Rand, etc., to be of a different sort from the bulk of philosophers. These were men and women that took a specifically humanistic approach to their views. You won't find them discussing epistemological foundations or ontological proofs often; rather, they will deal with man in the face of his condition/situation. I think it is because of this that they find a wider readership; they are accessible to those of us that ask How? and Why?

What do I think of Hume? Any man that can "awaken Kant from his Dogmatic slumber" deserves the attention and respect of a man who considers himself a thinker. It was Hume that called into question causality and metaphysics as a whole. Regardless of his success in this endeavor he argued it convincingly and almost single-handedly changed the direction of the boat of philosophy.

The way I view it: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel/Marx, Sartre, Rorty. Familiarize yourself with the tenets of these men's thought and you will provide for yourself a solid foundation from which to approach knowledge and the life we live.

Just remember, in two thousand years, philosophy has come to no better answer to the question of "Why?" then "Why not?" :icon_smile_big:

"Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man."
-Hume
An Enquiry into Human Understanding, Section I


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Poor Martha Nussbaumer*



Scoundrel said:


> If I could attend a talk by any contemporary philosopher, it would be Martha Nussbaum, because I would like to see the fireworks go off during the Q&A, when relativists start questioning her deep establishment in universality. :devil:


In an interview conducted by the Swiss magazine Information Philosophie, Martha Nussbaumer complained about education in the United States. It seems Prof. Nussbaumer could not find a school at which her daughters could learn Latin. The Swiss interviewer Peter Moser did not question this.

Since I come from Chicago, I wrote Prof. Nussbaumer to ask if she meant the region around Harvard, where she was previously employed. Her salary at the University of "Chicago" would enable her to pay fees for both daughters at the Latin School (nomen est omen), not to mention other possibilities in Chicago as far as private schools are concerned. I also asked the Swiss interviewer and magazine editor Peter Moser if he believed that a Harvard or University of Chicago faculty member is not able to find a school for her children to learn Latin.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Naive said:


> In an interview conducted by the Swiss magazine Information Philosophie, Martha Nussbaumer complained about education in the United States. It seems Prof. Nussbaumer could not find a school at which her daughters could learn Latin. The Swiss interviewer Peter Moser did not question this.
> 
> Since I come from Chicago, I wrote Prof. Nussbaumer to ask if she meant the region around Harvard, where she was previously employed. Her salary at the University of "Chicago" would enable her to pay fees for both daughters at the Latin School (nomen est omen), not to mention other possibilities in Chicago as far as private schools are concerned. I also asked the Swiss interviewer and magazine editor Peter Moser if he believed that a Harvard or University of Chicago faculty member is not able to find a school for her children to learn Latin.


She surely couldn't mean around Harvard. Harvard was built so that graduates of the first public school in America, Boston Latin School, would have a place to continue their education. While an exam school, BLS is free for Boston residents. Students entering in the 7th grade (called sixies) are required to take five years of Latin along with a modern language. For the final year they can continue with Latin or take Greek.

Boston Latin's mascot is Lupa, the she-wolf with Romulus and Remus suckling at her teats. How much more Latin can you get?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_School


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

ajo said:


> Bergson & Deleuze


"Desire is revolutionary, simply by wanting what it wants." or something like that. I was really into Deleuze and Guattari in under-grad.

Here's a great interview with Deleuze.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> If I could attend a talk by any contemporary philosopher, it would be Martha Nussbaum, because I would like to see the fireworks go off during the Q&A, when relativists start questioning her deep establishment in universality. :devil:


I met Jean Buadrillard. I thought it was pretty funny that he autographed my friend's book, .


----------



## rlp271 (Feb 12, 2009)

My favorite philosophers are Laozi and Sun Tzu. Both of these men wrote during a time of constant and bloody warfare. One wrote about the way man was supposed to coexist with his natural environment in an effort to live in an idealized version of the present. The other wrote more simply about how to crush your opponents before you even took the field against them.

About the argument that happened about whether the writing of Nietzsche influenced Loeb and Leopold: Philosphers attempt to answer questions of the known and the unknown based on their historical sphere of influence. What has happened in the past, as well as what is happening in their own present influences the course of philosophy. It is entirely possible that Leopold and Loeb were influenced by THEIR interpretation of Nietzsche. It has nothing to do with whether the posters in this forum truly understand the inner mind of a now dead philosopher, it only matters what the interpretation of the people in question was. As has been evidenced by pretty much every Christian nation that has taken power, the misreading of any philosophy can lead to disastrous and dangerous consequences. I'm sure that Paul would have told you, "Anyone who actually heard Jesus' words would know that he'd be against the violent slaughter of even those that were different from him." Tell that to the kings who partook in the Crusades. Just because you read Nietzsche, and you know that there is no way his words could be twisted to create an environment in which it is ok to murder in cold blood doesn't mean everyone else reads it in the same manner. That's why there is so much discourse and argument over what certain philosophers have written, and what they meant by that. If they clearly laid everything out, so everyone understood it in exactly the same way, it wouldn't really be philosophy would it? Nor would we be human.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Etymology of "Christian name"*

Fred- or Fried- ?

Fried- is connected to other words and might be translated in English as "peace-", "pac-".


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Poor Martha and her school Latin deprived daughters*

1. "She surely couldn't mean around Harvard." 
2. "While an exam school, BLS is free for Boston residents." 
3. "Boston Latin's mascot is Lupa, the she-wolf with Romulus and Remus suckling at her teats. How much more Latin can you get?"

1. I received no reply from Martha Nussbaumer to my inquiry what she means. 
2. "while" here is adversative. "Free" here is used in an economic sense, 
3. Your question is rhetorical and serves to divert attention from who Martha Nussbaumer is.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Naive said:


> Fred- or Fried- ?
> 
> Fried- is connected to other words and might be translated in English as "peace-", "pac-".


So wie Friedrich der Grosse von Preussen?


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Naive said:


> 1. I received no reply from Martha Nussbaumer to my inquiry what she means.


Maybe your query never reached the intended recipient since it was not addressed correctly.

Maybe she can't be bothered to respond because you couldn't be bothered to spell her name correctly.

Maybe next time you should try Nussbaumerin.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> All is clear now. Pipps is the ubermensch.


Thank you for the compliment.

Though the fact that you preface that word with 'the' rather than 'a' suggests that you really do have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I do wonder why people like you barge into a perfectly good thread, only to make inciteful accusations which have no factual basis, with seemingly the sole intent of sending the conversation downhill by causing people to feel the need to defend themselves.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Thank you for the compliment.
> 
> Though the fact that you preface that word with 'the' rather than 'a' suggests that you really do have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> I do wonder why people like you barge into a perfectly good thread, only to make inciteful accusations which have no factual basis, with seemingly the sole intent of sending the conversation downhill by causing people to feel the need to defend themselves.


I knew you would say that. Actually, English transalations include both definite and indefinite article usage, depending on context. Look it up.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

We're not talking about translations, here. We're talking about your specific use of a word in a specific context. A word which you clearly haven't ever 'looked up' yourself.

Have you actually contributed anything of value to this thread yet? Why did you even bother to post here in the first place? Just to create controversy and snipe another forum member? What exactly would you hope to achieve by that?

Can you take the hint? Please stop posting on my thread. Thank you.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> We're not talking about translations, here. We're talking about your specific use of a word in a specific context. A word which you clearly haven't ever 'looked up' yourself.
> 
> Have you actually contributed anything of value to this thread yet? Why did you even bother to post here in the first place? Just to create controversy and snipe another forum member? What exactly would you hope to achieve by that?
> 
> Can you take the hint? Please stop posting on my thread. Thank you.


I sincerely apologize if I offended you and am pleased to refrain from further posting. Good day.


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Can you take the hint? Please stop posting on my thread. Thank you.


*Your* thread? Not exactly. You may want to read the FAQs here sometime. _All_ text and images contained in these posts are owned 100% by the owner of this site, one Andy Gilchrist.

In other words, so long as 'Mike Petrik' (or anyone else, for that matter), is a member in good standing here, he can post in _any_ thread he wants, including this one.

JM


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Owen Barfield: History in English Words and/or Duden?*

So wie Friedrich der Grosse von Preussen?
No, incorrect.
Correct is: so wie *Friedrich" in Friedrich der Grosse von Preussen.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*1. Post Office 2. Spelling Bee 3. Gender Studies*

1. Maybe your query never reached the intended recipient since it was not addressed correctly.
2. Maybe she can't be bothered to respond because you couldn't be bothered to spell her name correctly.
3. Maybe next time you should try Nussbaumerin.:icon_smile_big:[/quote]

1. What is her correct address? 
2. What spelling do you recommend?
3. You can judge for yourself what you think is -in. I prefer Ingo Nussbaumer: Zur Farbenlehre (Splitter Verlag, Wien 2008)


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

JosephM said:


> *Your* thread? Not exactly. You may want to read the FAQs here sometime. _All_ text and images contained in these posts are owned 100% by the owner of this site, one Andy Gilchrist.
> 
> In other words, so long as 'Mike Petrik' (or anyone else, for that matter), is a member in good standing here, he can post in _any_ thread he wants, including this one.


I thought you said you had finished with this thread?

Oh well... as you wish.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

May I ask the philosophy experts here what is your opinion of Economic Theorists such as Bastiat, Rothbard, Mises, Menger, or Hayek as "thinkers." This is as close as I come regular reading of something philosophy-like other than the mandatory reading of _The Life of Reason_ many years ago; which apparently passes for a minimal level of exposure to philosophy in "public education." 

I wish I had room in my Undergrad or MBA curriculum for more liberal arts, but I was taking every Accounting and Finance course I could. The major philosophical point I learned was "if it moves; govt will tax it." :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

rlp271 said:


> My favorite philosophers are Laozi and Sun Tzu. Both of these men wrote during a time of constant and bloody warfare. One wrote about the way man was supposed to coexist with his natural environment in an effort to live in an idealized version of the present. The other wrote more simply about how to crush your opponents before you even took the field against them.


Thank you for these two recommendations. Both sounds fascinating, and I now intend to begin reading more about them.

I especially like the sound of Sun Tzu. It sounds very Makiavellian! :icon_smile:


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

QuestForReason said:


> There has always been a subjective distinction between philosophers....


Sir! Your observations fascinate me!

I would agree entirely that there must be at least two categories of thinkers. I find it interesting that you also mention Descartes, in your brief chronology of modern philosophy, as I would suggest that Descartes, in his day, would have most probably considered himself a scientist, rather than a philosopher as we use the term in perhaps a stricter sense today.

Of course, in Descartes' day, being a scientist, a mathematician and a great thinker, was all part of the same field of study. It seemed to be all practically one and the same in the eyes of that world.

I would agree that those great minds who are responsible for the formulation of very systems of thought and of dealing with the world must be held in a different category to anyone else. Existentialists such as Frederich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard of course took a different approach.

For instance...
Descrates asked 'Does God exist, and if so, how can I prove it?' 
Nietzsche asked, 'How should a man live?'

Perhaps it is a philosophical-scientist who formulates a system of defining, classifying and understanding existence, and a philosopher who determines what it means to be alive at a given point in history and what that means to a man.

It seems to me that the word 'philosopher' is simply too broad and vague to do justice to what so many different Geniuses have brought to the table in modern history.

What do you think?


----------



## QuestForReason (Jan 9, 2009)

Mr. Pipps said:


> For instance...
> Descrates asked 'Does God exist, and if so, how can I prove it?'
> Nietzsche asked, 'How should a man live?'


Descartes, would never pose such a question. :icon_smile_big: His only foray into God's existence was to establish a foundation for his thought. I have written a few papers in which I try to explain that, for Descartes, God is a mere causal guarantor. His objective is to allow certainty of some capacity; not, as is commonly associated, a benevolent being looking out for our best interests. In my opinion Descarte's arguments for the existence of God are quite easily disproved; his contemporary Gassendi, and later Kant would tear his variations of the Ontological argument to shreds.

Same for Nietzsche, his concern was not how man should live; quite the contrary, his focus was how could man be surpassed. Man is a creature in it's dying days as far as he is concerned. The Ubermensch was this next evolutionary being. Man, as he is now, attracts nothing but disdain from Nietzsche. And, to throw my two cents in here, the ubermensch and it's relation to Nazism was the efforts of Nietzsche's sister and her husband. Nietzsche would have found no sympathy for the efforts of the third reich. A reading of his 'Geneology of Morals' will make this clear.

'Philosopher' is a broad term and must remain as such. I have yet to come to any better definition of it than 'a lover of knowledge'. Clearly, when a more accurate term exists--i.e. a lover of mathematical knowledge is a mathematician--that should be used; however, philosophers can be found in the realm of math, science, epistemology, literature, etc. That being said, if we were to place criteria on the term, the system builders--Aristotle, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, etc.--would be most fitting of the term. But I would not want that to result in a lessening of the regard for more focused men: Nietzsche, Camus, Pascal, Rousseau, etc.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm pretty sure Nietzsche is convulsing in his grave at the thought of someone on an internet forum using his photo as an avatar and saying that he is the greatest philosopher EVAR. 

Menschliches, Allzukleinliches.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Hjalmar Hegge*

1. May I ask the philosophy experts here what is your opinion of Economic Theorists such as Bastiat, Rothbard, Mises, Menger, or Hayek as "thinkers." This is as close as I come regular reading of something philosophy-like other than the mandatory reading of _The Life of Reason_ many years ago; which apparently passes for a minimal level of exposure to philosophy in "public education." 

2. I wish I had room in my Undergrad or MBA curriculum for more liberal arts, but I was taking every Accounting and Finance course I could. The major philosophical point I learned was "if it moves; govt will tax it."

3. We are all Austrians now.

1. Hjalmar Hegge about why Friedrich von Hayek's thought on society is half-true: ISBN-10 3-7725-1111-2, ISBN-13 978-3-7725-1111-0.

2. The curriculum you describe as your own and about which you feel regret because of its limitations does indeed not fulfill the broader, if not deeper cultural horizon which the so-called Austrian School of Economics prescribed as obligatory ("Die trostlose Wirtschaftswissenschaft", 11.April.09, Neue Zürcher Zeitung). The author claims to contrast Austrian School of Economics to what he calls Angloamerican economic theory. The sentence you quote about government and taxes is general, but why philosophical?

3. I do not _feel_ myself to be Austrian. You include FL in your personal profile, if it means Fürstentum Liechtenstein, you know Liechtenstein's Furst threatened to leave for Vienna. I would prefer to _understand_ Austrians, in particular Rudolf Steiner.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> 1. May I ask the philosophy experts here what is your opinion of Economic Theorists such as Bastiat, Rothbard, Mises, Menger, or Hayek as "thinkers." This is as close as I come regular reading of something philosophy-like other than the mandatory reading of _The Life of Reason_ many years ago; which apparently passes for a minimal level of exposure to philosophy in "public education."
> 
> 2. I wish I had room in my Undergrad or MBA curriculum for more liberal arts, but I was taking every Accounting and Finance course I could. The major philosophical point I learned was "if it moves; govt will tax it."
> 
> ...


So, you don't have an opinion? Thanks for the ISBN. Finding an English translation seems like it might be a problem.

Regret? I wish I could sit, read, and study forever sometimes. Even if I go back again; I would like to go to George Mason's Ph.D. program in Economics. Following the path: undergrad:Accounting, MBA-Finance ...

The signature is a _absurd_ twist on the famous statement, "We are all Keynesians now." It's amazing to me how few people pick up on its genesis, are confused by it, or never questioned the Keynesian statement. I have received several PMs from similiar minded individuals. Mises.org has some of the worst t-shirts I think it would make a good one for them and a good conversation starter.

Philly: We are not all anything, but if we were all Keynesians that would be an awful hell of a thing to all be; wouldn't it? :icon_smile_big:

FL is an abbreviation for "Florida." Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Threefold commonwealth of social organism: 1. "Freiheit", 2. "freedom", 3. free lunch (FL)*

So, you don't have an opinion? Thanks for the ISBN. Finding an English translation seems like it might be a problem. 
*For example, an economist like Christian Houghton Budd might know *
*with whom you could discuss in depth Hjalmar Hegge's clarification of errors in understanding human society committed by Friedrich von Hayek and like spirits you earlier mentioned as influential on your own thought.*
The signature is a _absurd_ twist on the famous statement, "We are all Keynesians now." It's amazing to me how few people pick up on its genesis, 
*J.M. Keynes is a famous economist, but are Austrians economists?* *Is your signature absurd or obscure?* 
are confused by it, or never questioned the Keynesian statement. I have received several PMs from similiar minded individuals. Mises.org has some of the worst t-shirts I think it would make a good one for them and a good conversation starter.
Philly: We are not all anything, but if we were all Keynesians that would be an awful hell of a thing to all be; wouldn't it? :icon_smile_big:
*Are we not all human beings? More or less conscious of our motives?*
FL is an abbreviation for "Florida." 
*FL is an abbreviation known and used by all Austrians, but not for a free lunch, but for a tiny state which unfortunately at the present time does not fulfill the function of a innovative model of human society to inspire all human beings.*


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

You have been a pedant, so I shall start by doing the same! :icon_smile_big:



QuestForReason said:


> Nietzsche, his concern was not how man should live; quite the contrary, his focus was how could man be surpassed


Yes, man should live by overcoming himself! 



> Descrates asked 'Does God exist, and if so, how can I prove it?'
> 
> 
> QuestForReason said:
> ...


And of course, as with all Ontological arguments, the 'question' is always rhetorical, because it has already been answered by the 'philosopher' before it has been asked. 



QuestForReason said:


> And, to throw my two cents in here, the ubermensch and it's relation to Nazism was the efforts of Nietzsche's sister and her husband.


That is the irrefutible historic position, yes!



QuestForReason said:


> A reading of his 'Geneology of Morals' will make this clear.


Thank you for confirming my earlier point, Sir!



QuestForReason said:


> 'Philosopher' is a broad term and must remain as such. I have yet to come to any better definition of it than 'a lover of knowledge'. Clearly, when a more accurate term exists--i.e. a lover of mathematical knowledge is a mathematician--that should be used; however, philosophers can be found in the realm of math, science, epistemology, literature, etc. That being said, if we were to place criteria on the term, the system builders--Aristotle, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, etc.--would be most fitting of the term. But I would not want that to result in a lessening of the regard for more focused men: Nietzsche, Camus, Pascal, Rousseau, etc.


Brilliant, Sir! Simply brilliant!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> So, you don't have an opinion? Thanks for the ISBN. Finding an English translation seems like it might be a problem.
> *For example, an economist like Christian Houghton Budd might know *
> *with whom you could discuss in depth Hjalmar Hegge's clarification of errors in understanding human society committed by Friedrich von Hayek and like spirits you earlier mentioned as influential on your own thought.*
> The signature is a _absurd_ twist on the famous statement, "We are all Keynesians now." It's amazing to me how few people pick up on its genesis,
> ...


Well, there is a little thing called context. It asks Location? FL*, USA.*

I would say Austrian Economists are more so economists than Keynesian Economists because they embrace more of the behavioral side of a social science.

I would say, it's an "absurd twist." And I think I did. :icon_smile_wink: Obscure? It's a famous quote, but you are right I could have said "We are all Misesians now", but the more correct would be "We are all Mengerians now." I think your obscurity argument would be even more valid. So, perhaps Keynes was helped by the simple fact that Friedmanians (Friedmanites?) doesn't slip off the tongue like Keynesians does? Thus we have the Chicago School:Austrian School:Keynesians instead.

Anyone willing to take positions is occasionally going to be wrong or make errors. I asked simply of those that read the philosophers if and what the men I mentioned were thought of as thinkers. Certainly one could think they are wrong or make errors, but still respect them as disciplined thinkers; or not - opinions on Economics aside.

Thanks again for the lead into H.Hegge. I wish I could read Norwegian!  I found Robert Priddy has done translation work of H.Hegge, but the wrong work https://www.ifgene.org/hegge.htm So, that's a start. Of course, one has to "weed" (ha ha) through the Sai Baba garbage.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Sai Baba's garbageman*

Well, there is a little thing called context. It asks Location? FL*,* USA. 
*There is a big thing or factor in many persons' judgment called habit. *
*Context is recognized by connection thought, not perceived. *
*Double positions of row (location) often require content differentiation, *
*but the double position as form is more general and indifferent. *
I would say Austrian Economists are more so economists than Keynesian Economists because they embrace more of the behavioral side of a social science. 
*The point again in other words: *
*J.M. Keynes is not an ethnic group and Austrians not an economist.* 
I would say, it's an "absurd twist." And I think I did. 
*Correct is you said what you said is absurd.*

:icon_smile_wink: Obscure? It's a famous quote, but you are right I could have said "We are all Misesians now", but the more correct would be "We are all Mengerians now." 
*As you pointed out, this kind of phrase generation belongs to a domain where you offer advice to von Mises fan group how to decorate T-shirts to encourage conversation. *
I think your obscurity argument would be even more valid. 
*If I offered any arguments for or against obscurity, they do not ask for your approval. **I only wanted to asked you to consider why your phrase was not recognized, as you complained. *

So, perhaps Keynes was helped by the simple fact that Friedmanians (Friedmanites?) doesn't slip off the tongue like Keynesians does? 
*Why do you ask this question and why and for whom is it important?*

Thus we have the Chicago School:Austrian School:Keynesians instead.
*Does the so-called Chicago school have little, if anything to do with Chicago? *W*hy does* *this private institution bear this name and not Rockefeller's?*
Anyone willing to take positions is occasionally going to be wrong or make errors. I asked simply of those that read the philosophers if and what the men I mentioned were thought of as thinkers. Certainly one could think they are wrong or make errors, but still respect them as disciplined thinkers; or not - opinions on Economics aside.
*In psychology thought and thinker are differentiated. "Discipline" sounds good, but practice is difficult: for example, Sai Baba is not his garbage.*

Thanks again for the lead into H.Hegge. I wish I could read Norwegian!  
*I only mentioned Hjalmar Hegge in response to your wish for help to think through what Friedrich von Hayek does not. When you begin to learn Norwegian, you might learn German as well. *
I found Robert Priddy has done translation work of H.Hegge, but the wrong work https://www.ifgene.org/hegge.htm So, that's a start. 
*The next step would be to ask someone who is familiar with Hegge on von Hayek to explain his criticism of those thoughts which concern you.*
Of course, one has to "weed" (ha ha) through the Sai Baba garbage.
*I can try to teach a garbage man a bit English, but his job is to know what garbage is to put where it best fits the whole.*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> Well, there is a little thing called context. It asks Location? FL*,* USA.
> *There is a big thing or factor in many persons' judgment called habit. *
> *Context is recognized by connection thought, not perceived. *
> *Double positions of row (location) often require content differentiation, *
> ...


Wow! *That* was incredible!


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Your weeding and wedding pronouncement (odd couple)*

Wow! *That* was incredible![/quote]

1. "incredible" indeed seems at first your own assertion that Hjalmar Hegge's article was translated and that you can name its translator, whose other affiliation of which you are aware to know to include to say it must be excluded. Where on that website is stated the name of the translator or even that Hegge's article was translated?

2. The website whose address you gave above states only that Hegge's article previously appeared in the summer 1996 issue of a Newsletter of a Society for the Evolution of Science, but it does not suit the purpose of the website editor to offer information about _this_ society or _its_ newsletter. Thus the persons responsible for the website on which Hegge's article appears do not intend to facilitate exchange by its readers with a representative of _this_ society for evolution of science, in whose newsletter Hegge's article allegedly appeared.

3. What purpose does the mailing (not email) address at the university in Oslo under Hjalmar Hegge's name as author of the article on this website really have? Have you tried to contact Hegge by means of this address to ask him if he still thinks the same as in his book about von Hayek's views, or if since that time he has modified or even rejected what he wrote?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> 1. "incredible" indeed seems at first your own assertion that Hjalmar Hegge's article was translated and that you can name its translator, whose other affiliation of which you are aware to know to include to say it must be excluded. Where on that website is stated the name of the translator or even that Hegge's article was translated?
> 
> 2. The website whose address you gave above states only that Hegge's article previously appeared in the summer 1996 issue of a Newsletter of a Society for the Evolution of Science, but it does not suit the purpose of the website editor to offer information about _this_ society or _its_ newsletter. Thus the persons responsible for the website on which Hegge's article appears do not intend to facilitate exchange by its readers with a representative of _this_ society for evolution of science, in whose newsletter Hegge's article allegedly appeared.
> 
> 3. What purpose does the mailing (not email) address at the university in Oslo under Hjalmar Hegge's name as author of the article on this website really have? Have you tried to contact Hegge by means of this address to ask him if he still thinks the same as in his book about von Hayek's views, or if since that time he has modified or even rejected what he wrote?


You're kidding, right? What was incredible was the pathological level of parsing and obtuseness you displayed.

I asked a simple question which you are either unable to understand or answer. You are completely unable to communicate. You don't even know what "Location: FL, USA" might mean, but think you are operating on some deeper level. Go outside and get some air, Sir! You may have advanced studies, but you have clearly lost your perspective.

Perhaps that is not the article that Priddy translated of Hegge's, but I found a link saying it was. If you question that; then perhaps you could say so like a normal person. How would I know? Most of the Hegge links are in Norwegian. If you try to find information on Priddy most of what you find is a bunch of garbage about him and Sai Baba going back and forth. You are probably right; you would clearly find that the level of discourse in which they are in engaged satisfying.

Here's what I do know; I know Economics Drive Process and if H.Hegge's opinion of Hayek was considered valuable it would be on Amazon.com in English. It isn't.

Of course, I have not contacted H.Hegge via std-post. I simply asked the adults here in the room what they thought of the men as thinkers and you decided to make some maniacal exhibition of yourself. Have a good time!


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*No free lunch for thinking and knowledge*

You're kidding, right?
*No, wrong.*

I asked a simple question which you are either unable to understand or answer. 
*I never said I would answer it. I recommended you to look at Hegge.*

You are completely unable to communicate. 
*Yes, it is correct that I do not express your style of communication.*

Here's what I do know; I know Economics Drive Process and if H.Hegge's opinion of Hayek was considered valuable it would be on Amazon.com in English. It isn't.
*Perhaps you might consider changing your signature so that its content expresses more appropriately your conviction:*

*We are all Amazonians now.*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> You're kidding, right?
> No, wrong.
> 
> I asked a simple question which you are either unable to understand or answer. You are completely unable to communicate.
> ...


My conviction is: Economics drive process.

And it was my previous signature and remains my signature on personal correspondence.

I will take your advice to reconsider my signature though. Perhaps not for your reasoning, but since it lacks context for those not intimately familiar with modern American history/quotations and this is an international forum. Therefore; out of respect for different cultures and styles of communication it is probably best.

I did once receive a question from someone who was so confused they thought I was saying "We are all Aryans now." and was making some kind of Aryan Brotherhood type of comment about the new POTUS.

Thank you for your deference in formatting your reply.

EDIT: Ah, I see we share the habit of editing. We are just alike! LOL! Now your analyst is going to buy something nice for his children! LOL!


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Must something be understood before anything else can be understood?*

Ah, I see we share the habit of editing. We are just alike! [/quote]
*The attribute you employ as aspect for comparison is incorrect. *

*Here is a parting gift - of which I do not claim to be the author - *
*to help you satisfy the desire you express above - to be like somebody else, which will indeed first be the case if and only when you think it:*

*In order to explain the world by means of concepts, we cannot start from the elements of existence which came first in time, but we must begin with that element which is given to us as the nearest and most intimate.*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> Ah, I see we share the habit of editing. We are just alike!


*No, I do not share habits nor do you share such a habit with me.*
*The attribute you employ as aspect for comparison is incorrect. *
*Correct is you and I can think the same.*

*Here is a sentence by a third person as a parting gift for your practice of participation to share in thought or to put under your pillow:*

*In order to explain the world by means of concepts, we cannot start from the elements of existence which came first in time, but we must begin with that element which is given to us as the nearest and most intimate.*[/quote]

Thank You! I do love a good parting gift!! Albion Small? Just a guess.

It reminds me of Hazlitt's statement (although I think he seems a bit more critical): "The most sensible people to be met with in society are men of business and of the world, who argue from what they see and know, instead of spinning cobweb distinctions of what things ought to be."


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*We are all on our own now*

Neither Hazlitt nor Small can help you understand my parting gift for you. You will have to think it yourself. Good luck!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> *We are all on our own now*
> Neither Hazlitt nor Small can help you understand my parting gift for you. You will have to think it yourself. Good luck!


_*We*_ were always all on _*our*_ own.


----------



## QuestForReason (Jan 9, 2009)

Mr. Pipps said:


> And of course, as with all Ontological arguments, the 'question' is always rhetorical, because it has already been answered by the 'philosopher' before it has been asked.


I'm not so sure I agree with saying the 'question' is rhetorical. True, the Ontological argument is usually a first argument from a theistic philosopher, it nevertheless can be notoriously hard to refute. When I give seminars to first year philosophy students you can see their aggravation at trying to counter argue it. At first glance, it seems quite reasonable to state that it is a greater perfection to exist than to not exist. I usually bring the argument down to their terms by asking if it is better to own the idea of a Ferrari or to have an existing Ferrari in the driveway--clearly, a material, if not blasphemous, version of the argument, but it gets younger people interested. It is only after I rehearse Kant's refutation of the argument that they see the problems with the argument. Existence is not a predicate or property; it is a necessary aspect for the object--in this case God--to exist in the world. It is only after existence is present that a predicate can be attached to it. Existence cannot be treated like a perfection the same way omnipotence is.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Can Kant's Categorical Imperative be improved?*



Persephone said:


> I can still recite Kant's "Categorical Imperative" by heart.


You are the participant who prefers American students with cultivated feet and shoes in "our" Nation's Capitol (or is it Capital).

I wish I had not merely encountered your claim of proficiency with the comment: translation is more challenging than recitation (my post was in remore control in case you didn't notice my posted comment). 
I should have also asked you for a personal rehearsal to experience your interpretation. You belong to the memory-able minds here, some of whom remember "always".

By the way, have you considered how to improve Kant's "Categorical Imperative"?


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

At first glance, it seems quite reasonable to state that it is a greater perfection to exist than to not exist.
*At second glance, it seems quite vague or tautological to claim >is< compared with >not is< is more or less perfect. Obviously, anything which is, is perfect in the sense that it is. *
*Anything which is not, might be perfect in the sense that it is not.* 
*It seems exceptional how you use* *perfection as an adjective with more or less, most or least. More or less perfect, most or least perfect make sense to you?*

I usually bring the argument down to their terms
*What kind of "terms" are they?* 
by asking if it is better to own
*How does one "own" an idea?* 
the idea of a Ferrari or to have an existing Ferrari in the driveway--clearly, a material, if not blasphemous, version of the argument, but it gets younger people interested. 
*How many parts does the idea of a Ferrari have?* 
*Is the driveway only material?*
It is only after I rehearse Kant's refutation of the argument that they see the problems with the argument. Existence is not a predicate or property; it is a necessary aspect
*What is "existence" as "aspect"?*
*Is "existence" only "aspect"?* 
for the object--in this case God--to exist in the world. It is only after existence is present that a predicate can be attached to it. 
*To attach a predicate to what? You mean "existence" now as a subject in a judgment or proposition?*
Existence cannot be treated like a perfection the same way omnipotence is.[/quote]
*What do you mean by "treatment"?*


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Your own thinking activity, my own sense perception*



ksinc said:


> _*We*_ were always all on _*our*_ own.


Do you want to emphasize by *We*, *our* the plural personal and possessive pronouns? Don't forget "we" in the above subject title is not meant as a collective group in which persons are not aware of their individual thinking activity (whereas the "we" in your signatures - we were Austrians, now Amazonians - most likely has a leader who tells the others what to think). Individual means at least I can't and don't think for you, you can't and don't think for me.

Don't you want to emphasize your addition "always"? You mean since you remember?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> Do you want to emphasize by *We*, *our* the plural personal and possessive pronouns? Don't forget "we" in the above subject title is not meant as a collective group in which persons are not aware of their individual thinking activity (whereas the "we" in your signatures - we were Austrians, now Amazonians - most likely has a leader who tells the others what to think). Individual means at least I can't and don't think for you, you can't and don't think for me.
> 
> Don't you want to emphasize your addition "always"? You mean since you remember?


Yes; I do.

Sure; I would enjoy that. And that's the beauty of us; *always* a collective group of individuals.

No; I mean since the beginning.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Your leaders Hazlitt and Small*



ksinc said:


> Yes; I do.
> 
> Sure; I would enjoy that. And that's the beauty of us; *always* a collective group of individuals.
> *Your "us" is not what I mean because a collective group of individuals must not be human nor must such individuals understand themselves as thinkers and their own relationship to thinking.*
> ...


*Beginning of what?*

*What do Hazlitt and Small say to individual thinking activity and how it can become conscious?*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> *Your "us" is not what I mean because a collective group of individuals must not be human nor must such individuals understand themselves as thinkers and their own relationship to thinking.*
> 
> *Beginning of what?*
> 
> *What do Hazlitt and Small say to individual thinking activity and how it can become conscious?*


I cannot concede your point. We have to disagree on that one.

The Beginning. Probably the same disagreement.

---

What I meant before by discipline could be described as Hazlitt's learned approach in his writings to method thinking; I would say very deliberately in his work _Thinking As A Science_. In _Economics in One Lesson,_ which was written to a much broader audience, Hazlitt advocated beginning to think in a staged approach which could be described as conscious thinking activity. I'm going to say this would complement well with what little I know of Small's writings. I know he separated thinking about values from desires. I am honestly not familiar enough with Small's work to offer an opinion. I'm getting older and it's been a long time.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Small small, Hazlitt hazy*



ksinc said:


> I cannot concede your point. We have to disagree on that one.
> *I didn't ask you "to concede a point".* *Nor to I speak of agreement or disagreement. Your plural we/our sounds to me without any experience/understanding of thinking as an activity. Since you introduced the names Hazlitt and Small, I thought you might be able to tell me what you know Hazlitt and Small contributed on the subject of thinking activity *
> The Beginning. Probably the same disagreement.
> *You say beginning is the Beginning. *
> ...


*Every body is getting older. One would imagine that time enables depth. **Small seems to have no significance for your life, whereas thinking does.*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> *Every body is getting older. One would imagine that time enables depth. **Small seems to have no significance for your life, whereas thinking does.*


True; True; and True.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> *Why is thinking science?*


I don't think it is for everybody. "Thinking vs. Real Thinking."; Hazlitt.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Why is thinking science or is thinking science for everybody?*



ksinc said:


> I don't think it is for everybody. "Thinking vs. Real Thinking."; Hazlitt.


You introduced the book titled "Thinking is Science" by your favorite philosopher Hazlitt.

I asked you why is thinking scence?

If you reply you don't think thinking is science for everybody, you answer another question: Do you think thinking is science for everybody?

You add a quote from your favorite philosopher Hazlitt: "Thinking versus Real Thinking".
Is this your expression of thinking or real thinking?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> You introduced the book titled "Thinking is Science" by your favorite philosopher Hazlitt.
> 
> I asked you why is thinking scence?
> 
> ...


No.

I introduced a book "_Thinking *As*_ _*A*_ _Science" _not "_Thinking_ *Is* _Science_"_._

*Then you asked "Why is thinking Science?*

I responded that thinking is not a science for everybody. And I referred to Hazlitt's discussion on Thinking vs. Real Thinking in his book.

The question was faulty.

You make as many bad assumptions and over generalizations as I; while expressing a certain sensitivity about any I make. Not good style. Perhaps more humility is in order for you?

I'll make you a deal: you read one of my favorite books and I'll read one of yours of equivalent length; then I'll answer your questions: 
https://books.google.com/books?id=7...a=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1

Is Hazlitt my favorite philosopher? He's certainly one of my favorite theorists. I was wondering if he was respected as a thinker rising to the label philosopher in the discussion. I don't know the answer. Is everyone who thinks or _really thinks,_ in Hazlitt's terminology, a philosopher? I don't know that either. I have to really think about it first. Does that make me a philosopher? Wouldn't I be my favorite? Oh the strain is unbearable!


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Make a deal with the devil*

1. I introduced a book "_Thinking *As*_ _*A*_ _Science" _not "_Thinking_ *Is* _Science_"_._
*Then you asked "Why is thinking Science?*
_1. "as" means identity or subsumption. The indefinite article indicates at most species and is not contradicted by its omission._ 
2. I responded that thinking is not a science for everybody. And I referred to Hazlitt's discussion on Thinking vs. Real Thinking in his book.
The question was faulty.
_2.You asked for philosophical judgment of von Hayek. Even when I ask a simple question about the title of your favorite book, you reply not for everybody. But you found Hegge's address at the University of Oslo and I suggested you ask the economics historian Christian Haughton Budd if he can answer your question._
3. You make as many bad assumptions and over generalizations as I;
_3. Please do bring to my attention which bad assumptions and overgeneralizations I express._
4. while expressing a certain sensitivity about any I make. 
_4. Do I take you too seriously?_
5. Not good style. 
_5. Not "thinking" or "real thinking" in the sense of Hazlitt? _
_If it is in your judgment not good, can it get better?_
6. Perhaps more humility is in order for you?
_6. At least illumination to how thinking and real thinking differ._
7. I'll make you a deal: you read one of my favorite books
_7. Who will pay for the costs of my study to research the truth of what you think is important?_
8. and I'll read one of yours of equivalent length
_8. But I did not ask you to read anything (even of inequivalent depth). Your motto is anything worthwhile is on Amazon. When you asked for a judgment of von Hayek, I brought Hegge to your attention. If you consider Hegge is up to you._
9. then I'll answer your questions: 
_9. I asked only to better understand what you said._


----------

