Favorite philosopher?

Žižek has really stepped the meme game up in the twenty first century.

Do real philosophers take him seriously or is he a joke? I can't really get past his sniffling so I have no clue what he talks about

i didnt know zeno and plato where the same person

You didn't? That's 200 level stuff. I'm really worried about the quality of this board if there are people who don't realize Zeno and Plato are just different pseudonyms for the same person

Spinoza,
Schopenhauer,
Wittgenstein,
and Heraclitus.

I enjoy smoaking a pipe and watching the great battel of spiders.

Unfortunately many people do take him seriously.

I don't know why even, he can be funny and witty, but he's a lame psychoanalyst that's stuck in the 1930s philosophically.

>post-structuralism ends in 2009
why?

anyway, Merleau-Ponty has had the most direct influence on my research, so i'll go with him, but Kierkegaard is my favorite to read and Foucault, Deleuze, and Spinoza are based

A textual analysis indicated that it was just a bunch of bullshit

>Platonism
>469 - Present day
Based Plato, no one comes close.

Toss up between Frege, Russell, and Kripke

Anything that strays from the Pythagorean and Platonic traditions isn't philosophy.

>FEATHERLESS BIPED

...

Diogenes of Sinope.

Anyone have book recommendations for philosophy 101? Like an encyclopedia of philosophers and philosophic schools/ideas with maybe 1-2 pages of description per entry

Top tier:
Nietzsche
Hegel
Heidegger
Wittgenstein

Good tier:
Kant
Hume
Plato
Aristotle
Spinoza
Descartes

>Heidegger
that quack?

philosophy quest for truth was a decent intro book i read in undergrad

He doesn't actually delve too deep into his actual thought during speeches or his films. That's mostly reserved for his books, which are very very divisive among academics. Some people think he's an obscurationist and there isn't much behind his word salad while others think he's genuinely insightful. The common ground is that he's way harder to decipher than he needs to be.

Yuh.

But why?

Because his philosophy is very, very good.

Ah the philosophy hunk, the rarest of birds.

Ah, okay.

All time: Has to be william james, who incidentally was Wittgenstein's favorite philosopher.

You just can't beat that James was a cutting edge cognitive scientist for his day and a trained physician with an encyclopedic knowledge of anatomy and physiology. He applied this to his pioneering studies in psychology, publishing the classic first textbook in psychology Principles of Psychology (still a profound and essential if outdated read). Not only that but pragmatism is one of the dankest philosophies.

James' influence on a wide range of topics has made a genuine mark on several fields.

Fav social philosopher : toss up between Sarte and Kropotkin.

Sarte had an amazing way with words, so long as he wasn't writing about muddleheaded metaphysics, and his insight into human behavior and motivation and political systems is huge.

Kropotkin is known for his theory of human eusociality Mutial Aid, but the dude had some amazing thoughts on fields as far apart as pedagogy and evolutionary psychology.

Yeah, William James is seriously underrated by non philosophers. Habit is a short read and blows me away.

Look up the requirements for becoming a doctor during the days of William James. It wasn't very impressive, basically becoming a half-arsed undergrad. I am not saying he was uneducated but I am doubting your too flattering words.

The only good part about Sartre is his metaphysics, and that is basically shitty phenomenology/Heidegger.

Evolutionary psychology is basically bullshit. Way too strong core assumption which neglects early contingencies in human history, accidental coherence throughout cultures and sociology.

It may just be by chance that marriage between siblings are taboo (marriage does not imply consummation in some cultures.)
But generally familiarity is good when taking care of house hold, children of later marriages etc.
Since evolutionary psychology assumes that universal taboos must be evolutionary grounded this option is ruled out.
The same could be applied to the fact that there existed social hierarchies etc., in pre-human species, which could determine society, which in turn could create psychological taboos. But yet again, evolutionary psychology assumes it must be biological if it has lead to a universal principle.

His thoughts on neoliberalism is pretty good. I don't know how original it is though.

>evolutionary psychology assumes it must be biological if it has lead to a universal principle.

Do you mean, it assumes that there is a genetic influence/predisposition as a significant factor, or that it's explained as completely genetic?

It is usually explained in evolutionary terms as far as I am aware.
There are evolutionary biological reasons to explain the universal presence of rape, as an example. This states that rape is somehow evolutionary beneficial in some way.
It doesn't need to be reducible to genes but rather some vague form of evolutionary principles.
Evolutionary psychology explains it the wrong way according to me.
We have a general principle that:
Evolution->Behaviour.
They see Behaviour and assumes Evolution.
But instead we should also recognise that:
Contingencies->Behaviour
Ideology->Behaviour
Sociology->Behaviour
Anthropological principles->Behaviour
Biology->Behaviour

Then it is up to respective field to investigate whether they can explain the principle or not.

Evolutionary psychology is a redundant and fallacious meme pseudo-science.

Sorry. It is up to each respective field to explain the behaviour or not.

>No separate category for Marxists
>No direct link between Marxsts and contemporary pshlosophy
WEW.

>omitting the most avant-garde phenomenologist in history

I know more about general animal behaviour than evo psych, but rape in animals seems very easy to explain as the sex drive getting a bit out of control. But if it's the same species then it could be 'evolutionarily beneficial' in terms of passing genes on potentially. But see the vid below, as an example for the potentially 'beneficial' behaviour malfunctioning, and in terms of contingencies, obviously if there are no penguins in the area the situation would never occur.

And maybe some people portray evolutionary psych as the single important factor in an overly reductionist way, but to deny the influence of evolution (even indirectly) seems to be leaving out an important part.

youtube.com/watch?v=cLjWDpkZUGk

> When Plato sat down and wrote of the wise teacher Socrates in his work "The Apology" this statement, in which Socrates was purported to have said is one of the gems that have withstood time and place.

> To know we know nothing is to remain humble and heart centered, not ego driven. Since it appears that most issues in society are centered on having power, retaining power, empowering oneself or others, or dis empowering another for perceived one-up-manship, this wonderfully inspired sentiment gets lots on a narcissistic society.

> It would appear that narcissism is alive and spreading in the 21st century. All one need do is look at someones Facebook page to see the multitude of pictures of the self strewn in the albums, and the focus on the life of the self from the ridiculous to the sublime. It is not enough that we think of the effects of something from our own gain or loss, but now we focus on the minutiae of our bodily functions twittering them to all those willing to read those 140 or less updates. There are several articles that examine the idea that because they were often told they were "special" and could "do anything they wanted to do" many of our twenty and thirty something offspring believe they are in fact "entitled" to any and all things by virtue of being alive. This undermines the point mom and dad were trying to make. Told they had limitations during their youth, mom and dad wanted to be sure their offspring knew they had lots of choices in life, but there was nothing in the pep talk that told them to be egotistically self centered in the process!

> Knowledge is something we hope to acquire over a lifetime, and by both knowledge and experience we come to the real goal: to attain wisdom. But wisdom and knowledge are fluid. No one, even someone as brilliant as Socrates stops learning, growing and assimilating information. When we come to think ourselves better than another, smarter, or ingrained in a solid belief system, we limit the lives we live. For what is better than knowing each person and new experience, even those that are seemingly perceived as negative can help us to grow? Each term I start a new class I make sure to tell my students they are there to teach me too, and I am open to learn and grow from each of them. The relationship is based on equality, more than an insufferable sense of superiority. I may have studied longer than they, and have loved longer than them, but what makes me wiser? The only thing that makes me wise is knowing I know nothing, and can continue to learn from each new day.

> Socrates was considered a dissident in Greece in his time. He was condemned as a heretic for that which he taught his students and sentenced to die by ingesting hemlock. It was the answer that the Oracle at Delphi gave when asked who was the wisest man in Athens at the time. The Oracle replied it was Socrates, although he believed this to be a paradox. Those in Athens who believed themselves to be wise were actually not wise, but Socrates who knew he was not wise was the wisest of all for his admission of his ignorance.

> Not wanting to change who he was, Socrates remained true to his beliefs and willingly drank the hemlock that killed him at the end. His death makes him a martyr for his beliefs and opens the door for his student, Plato to write of his thoughts and philosophical discussions that were compilations of possible discussions in his lifetime. When he was on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, he used his insights to demonstrate to the jurors that their moral values are not aligned. He reminds them that the material concerns of life should be balanced with concern for ones soul.And it is this soul that is sorely missing from the way people interact in society today as well.

> There is nothing wrong with ego if it is in balance with all other areas of ones life. It is when the ego overtakes our lives completely that we can become arrogant, judgmental and self centered. As in all things we must seek to balance our lives with beauty, humbleness and generosity, compassion and love for our fellow man, and remember that there is much to learn, and even if we lived another 200 years, there is no way we could learn it all.

hubpages.com/education/The-only-real-wisdom-is-knowing-you-know-nothing-Socrates

Mine:
Heraclitus
Socrates
Pyrrho
Sextus Empiricus
Montaigne
Pascal
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Kripkenstein
Derrida

'Cause you can't no nuthin.

that chart is pretty cool OP

Okay. Let me rephrase myself:
They see a behaviour, and they assume that:
Evolutionary Entity/Structure->Behaviour.
Then they postulate an evolutionary entity/structure.
Postulations are generally bad. Saying that X could explain it isn't sufficient if we don't haven't verified the existence of X or X is falsifiable.

Instead the BIOLOGIST should find entities/structures. Then the biologist can explain psychological behaviour etc.

They are doing it the wrong way around. Their inference is only valid if there is no other possible explanation for the behaviour. I have given many possible competing explanations.

If sociology finds something which could explain the behaviour, let sociology explain it.
If anthropology finds something which could explain the behaviour, let anthropology explain it.
If biology finds something which could explain the behaviour, let biology explain it.

Don't rest too much weight on the shoulders of biology because that will create a pseudo-science.

Evolutionary psychology is based on the fallacious idea that in a scientific hierarchy of grounding, the causality must go from the more fundamental sciences upwards.
But sociology, even if its ontology is grounded in physics, biology and psychology, may affect biology, the present of physical objects, and may affect psychological behaviour.

Evolutionary psychology assumes all causality goes:
Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Psychology->Sociology.

But that is an ONTOLOGICAL GROUNDING relation (which I personally disagree with), not a CAUSAL relation (but this should be obvious).

I dont see Žižek on that list.

I am a tad surprised Frederic Bastiat isn't on there though. Not that I am a Bastiaboo or Libertarian or of that philosophical style but he did influence a lot of Economists as well as political philosophers with La Loi.

Where's motherfucking Pascal on your chart?

>Instead the BIOLOGIST should find entities/structures. Then the biologist can explain psychological behaviour etc.

Can this be assessed separate from the whole?

I think this is a bit of a strawman, but why not attempt to look at an issue from multiple perspectives, sociology, anthropology and biology, rather than trying to force an explanation using information from one field alone.

>Evolutionary psychology assumes all causality goes: Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Psychology->Sociology.

I don't think anyone with an understanding of evolution would see it in such a linear way.

I'm probably going to go with Stirner. I love the internal consistency, succinctness, and naked honesty of his philosophy.

Nietzsche
William James
Wittgendtein

I hate this mother fucker so much.
>le world is dark
>le Jesus is they way

My favorite pile of bones as well

Okay, I may have overstated the position of the evolutionary psychologist.
But I still think the core of my criticism holds.
It is possible to look at a phenomena from different perspectives. But then we should take the phenomena, then look what other sciences have said about it. We should NOT go around and postulate new facts. We should go from already stated facts in the sciences.

It may be possible to propose facts. But this is not making science, this is creating hypotheses.

This is what I mean with it being redundant. I do however think that it is important to look at how different sciences interplay. But this should be the job of science theorists or philosophers of science.

>I don't think anyone with an understanding of evolution would see it in such a linear way.

I meant that it was a bit of an implicit assumption in their argument agenda.
A main part of evolutionary psychology is grounding psychological principles in evolutionary principles.
But when we speak of specific cases like rape, the causal chain may come from any direction. This seems to be a bit antagonistic with the idea that psychological principles can be grounded in evolutionary principles, since some psychological principles may then be grounded in sociological principles.

That is way I stressed that the sciences' ontology is generally seen as more fundamental the further down the hierarchy we go.

Chemistry is grounded in atoms.
Biology is grounded in molecules etc.
Psychology is grounded in animals, genes etc.

But there may exist universal psychological principles affected by sociology etc.

But if they propose that the principles of psychology can be grounded in evolutionary principles, that is not making the same case. That case would be like saying that the causal chain would go as I said.

...

>But this is not making science, this is creating hypotheses.

How would science progress if not by hypothesising prior to testing? The media has probably overstated some evolutionary psychology hypotheses, but why would you judge the research on its popularity?

>Biology is grounded in molecules etc.
Psychology is grounded in animals, genes etc.

This is a strange division, I don't think you are very familiar with biology.

I don't judge it by my influence from media but rather from me having encountered it when studying philosophy and anthropology.

>This is a strange division, I don't think you are very familiar with biology.

It is a grounding relation. The brain gives rise to psychology. The brain is described in the field of biology/neurology/bio-chemistry etc.. The evolution of the brain is described in evolutionary biology.

The general picture is that the ontological entities used in one field, like emotions, ideas, drives and what not, in psychology, can be reducible to biological/neurological/chemical stuff.

General view of the hierarchy (which has been very questioned):
Ontological entities in X, can ALL be reduced to earlier sciences' ontologies. This is true with all sciences except the most fundamental science.

Whether I got the specific examples right do not matter. This is still the general view of how to ground or reduce one science to another.

>It is a grounding relation. The brain gives rise to psychology. The brain is described in the field of biology/neurology/bio-chemistry etc.

But that brain can't be considered completely separately from it's environment in terms of evolution.

>How would science progress if not by hypothesising prior to testing?
This is not my major feud with evolutionary psychology. My major feud with evolutionary psychology is that they postulate hypotheses and present them as factual since they support their grandiose assumption that universal psychological behaviour can be explained by biological principles. If they would just postulate hypotheses and work WITH biologists to falsify them. Great. But this is not my general encounter with it.
They look at a universal behaviour. Claim that it is explainable by biology. Creates a specific "theory" to explain the universal behaviour from some biological stuff. Then they present it as a theory.

>My major feud with evolutionary psychology is that they postulate hypotheses and present them as factual since they support their grandiose assumption

Fair enough.

Yes. but you're still conflating causality and ontological reduction/grounding.

Higher structures may play a causal role.
Higher structures may still be ontologically grounded/reducible to more fundamental sciences.

I'm not denying the reducibility, just that for practical purposes biological behaviour obviously can't be explained solely in terms of physics etc, this doesn't mean that the biological/evolutionary factors don't have an influence, and if it's 'impractical' to study it in the most ideally rigorous way, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be pursued.

I never claimed that biology/evolutionary factors didn't have an influence. I claimed that they were only part of the influence.
As I stated earlier, the assumption of evolutionary biology is too heavy etc.

There may be ways to make interdisciplinary sciences I have alluded to earlier.

Such a science would need to do this:
Instead of taking a standpoint from a specific method, study specific concepts/entities etc. An example of such a science is gender studies. They study gender relations from biology, sociology, literature theory, critical theory etc.
They need to ACCEPT the facts of said fields.
They also need some general principles to discriminate facts from different fields. Let's say we have a biological fact which contradicts the predictions of a sociological fact. Which one are we going to pick?

This way of working is wholly different than what the evolutionary-psychologist does.

I'll go and study now so I won't probably respond more.

of evolutionary psychology*

lol fag spotted