Top 5 favorite & disliked philosophers

[1900]

Greetings, everyone.

Just five? Well, I'll give it a try anyway :(.

Likes: Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant, Tarski, Gödel.

Dislikes: Hegel, Derrida, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas

My two cents.

[Lomax]

Well, it looks like I may be out of favour with a few of the earlier posters in this thread:

My favourites:

1. Bertrand Russell
2. Peter Singer
3. W.V.O.Quine
4. David Hume
5. Alfred Ayer

My least favourites:

1. Ayn Rand
2. Martin Heidegger
3. Jacques Derrida
4. Bernard Williams
5. G.W.F.Hegel

Lomax

[1900]

Greetings, everyone.

If my fingers don't betray me, Hume has been "liked" 5 times. On the other side, in the "dislikes", the undisputed heavy weight champion of the world: Hegel. If you thought it was Ayn Rand, you were close.

My two cents.

[Aodhan]

Favourites:

Berkeley
Joyce
Descartes
Nietzsche
and... em ...
Kierkegaard
Leibniz
and Camus

Least favourites:

Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau (how pretentious were these gits)
Bertrand Russell (even though everything I know about Leibniz comes from him)
Dawkins
Simone de Beauvoir

[HigherLvlofThinking]

Okay i dont see how anyone can hate Thoreau? Hes an amazing writer. My favorites are Scrates, Sartre, Nietzsche, and Berkeley. i dont really have any least favorties yet. I dont like Kierkegaard, and Hegel just because of thier writings, K seems to be to into his Christian methods to have his own orginal ideas?( my opinion

[gavagai]

Likes
1. Bertrand Russel
2. W.V.O.Quine
3. David Hume
4. David Lewis
5. John Rawls

Dislikes
1. Berkeley
2. Descartes
3. Plato
4. Peter van Inwagen
5. Nietzsche

[owleye]

Love them all.

James

[AmbivalentOne]

Love them all.

James

I agree, but if I had to put them into categories it would look like this...

Likes:

Siddhartha Gautama
Chuang Tzu
Heidegger
Wittgenstein
Baudrillard

Dislikes:

Jesus
Moses
Muhammad
Lady Gaga
George Clooney

[wuliheron]

Lao Tzu
Chuang Tzu
Wittgenstein
Spinoza
Barry Neil Kaufman


Ayn Rand
Berkeley
Dawkins
Heidegger
Derrida

[dragslaye]

Likes:
Wun Tsu
Miyamoto Mushashi
Confucio
Nietzsche
Plato

No dislikes to this date

[BadgerJelly]

LIKES : Me, Me, Me, Me and Me.

DISLIKES : Me, Me, Me, Me and Me.

[littletrio]

Aquinas, Descartes, Machiavelli, Gracian, Rousseau are my likes.

Nietzsche, Plato (Dialogues, uh), Hume and Aristotle (have read and understood, but difficult, any post modern stuff. I might add that I see the genius in all of my dislikes, but I have had to force myself through them.

[HigherLvlofThinking]

Haha wow, just looked at my old curly kid 13 post, still agree with it today. But I know now I like Nietzsche, Plato, Descartes, Berkeley, and Sartre. Cant really say I dislike any philosopher, I guess the two I said in my older post as curly kid still apply.

[Gregorygregg1]

The only philosopher I really hate is Socrates. He never gave us any answers, he just asked questions and expected us to work things out for ourselves. I ask you, what kind of philosopher is that?

My favorite is Sarte. I tried reading "Being and Nothingness" , but I couldn't get past page 80 because I couldn't understand a thing he was saying. Now that's what I call a real philosopher.

[Rj7237]

5 Philosophers I Like
Democritus
Pythagoras
Plato
Philolaus
Anaxagoras

5 Sophists I Dislike
Darwin
Newton
Einstein
Hegel
Marx

I don't get it......

I think the person was saying that in his opinion , Marx, Hegel, Darwin,Newton, and Einstein, acted like they knew a lot, but they really didn't, or didn't produce wisdom. Pythagoras originated the term philosopher, because he felt there were people who didn't care about wisdom,just rhetoric, thouh they acted like they knew a lot, and expected payment for thier teachings.Pythagoras, didn't like the sophists, and wanted to distance himself from them.Also, I commited sophistry, because I really had no idea what I was talking about.

[Gregorygregg1]

5 Philosophers I Like
Democritus
Pythagoras
Plato
Philolaus
Anaxagoras

5 Sophists I Dislike
Darwin
Newton
Einstein
Hegel
Marx

I think the person was saying that in his opinion , Marx, Hegel, Darwin,Newton, and Einstein, acted like they knew a lot, but they really didn't, or didn't produce wisdom. Pythagoras originated the term philosopher, because he felt there were people who didn't care about wisdom,just rhetoric, thouh they acted like they knew a lot, and expected payment for thier teachings.Pythagoras, didn't like the sophists, and wanted to distance himself from them.Also, I commited sophistry, because I really had no idea what I was talking about.

It looks to me like total science has a preference for ancient philosophers with no basis in science or physics. I suppose this implies that science has had no productive impact on our understanding of truth.

[Ataraxia]

Favorites:

Richard Rorty
John Dewey
Jean Paul Sartre
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Isaiah Berlin

Least Favorites:
Really none. All the great ones had something important and interesting to say.

[88mm]

Disliked Philosopher:

William Lane Craig- his philosophy is extremely exclusive to Christian Theology, there seems to be no problem to that, but his act of ranting his faith is what should be abhorred , on one debate, which inspired me to dislike him, he said that if one is not Christian he did not find the correct faith and he was not searching well.



Likes:

Baruch Spinoza- One of the philosophers who portrayed the life of being such, excluded from the society, refuted by the church, considered immoral, yet he still retained his posture, which is what I included in my post about the "philosophical universe". He also was the first philosopher to lay credible foundation of God not exclusivity to religious perspective.

David Hume- He expounded what I refer as practical probability of what is more likely to happen; miracles or physical actuation?

[DragonFly]

David Hume- He expounded what I refer as practical probability of what is more likely to happen; miracles or physical actuation?

Ah, that is a good base position, seeing as miracles have never been seen.

James of this SCF/PCF is good, too.

[NeoTheseus]

Hey everyone, its been a while since I posted. Here's my list & slight commentary:

Likes

1. Socrates/Plato- I list them together because Plato was the writer of the two. I loved how in the Trial & Death of Socrates Socrates addressed death something like this. There are two possibilities. Either I close my eyes into nothingness & it will be like a dreamless sleep or I will open my eyes into a better existance. Either way, this life can't hurt me anymore.

2. Spinoza- Ethics is a difficult read but I loved his definition of God in a pantheistic slant. The way he presents his case even Atheists would have a problem disputing God the way he descriped it. I may butcher his exact wording but he said something to the effect that everything in existance consists of one substance or matter. That substance or matter is God. God can be anything from the loving caretaker of the Judeo-Christian faith to the cluster of immutable laws of science. Either way, He, in the neuter, created the universe. Spinoza is phenominal! (...but still second for me to the dynamic duo of Socrates & Plato.)

3. Lao Tzu- The Dao De Ching was a philosophical & religious masterpiece! I believe that most benevolent religions would have problems arguing his concepts...if they read it! This is one of my favorite quotes from the Dao chapter 27, "What is a good man but a bad man's teacher? What is a bad man but a good man's job?"

4. Aristotle- I loved his Nicomachean Ethics. I liked the way he defined the different types of friends & how to show oneself to be friendly, pertaining to need & pleasure. If one has a need & the other has resource, resource is provided in exchange for honor & appreciation. The other form of friendship is mutual pleasure. I feel that these concepts led to today's understanding of philanthropy & social courtesies.

5. Emerson- I loved his Essays. I also enjoyed his Oversoul concept that we were all one in this universe; just different expressions.

The runners up were Machiavelli for his writing the Prince & Decartes for his concept of duelism. I, of course love his famous quote, "I think, therefore I am." Many in Washington aren't thinking very much; then I guess they wouldn't exist then. I guess they do think but they think wrongly!

Dislikes

I only have one & it is Sir Francis Bacon. I felt as though he was a brilliant man. My issue with him is that I feel he was an egotistical, opportunistic, manipulative S.O.B. I felt he had a character failing instead of a philosophical one.

Sorry if I was long in the tooth. I missed you guys (& gals). I will be posting more in the near future.

[stuartp523]

Gregory wrote:
My favorite is Sarte. I tried reading "Being and Nothingness" , but I couldn't get past page 80 because I couldn't understand a thing he was saying. Now that's what I call a real philosopher.

I read, more or less, the first 100 pages 4 times without understanding a word he said. Each time after it started to make a little more sense.

Favorites:

Satre and Heidegger: If their's anyone who combines a full ontological philosophy, with a poetic style and utter disregard for people unfamiliar with the philosophers that came before them (such as I was) I'd like to know.

Miguel De Unamuno: In his "Tragic Sense of life" I finally found someone who solves the parodox of a downtrodden person still "loving one another".

Kierkegarrd
Bergson

Dislikes:

Dennet: He introduced me to philosophy, but was also responsible for my mistakenly avoiding modern philosophy up until recently.

Dawkins: He said he's not qualified to venture into philosophical questions, but does anyway.

Russel: While perhaps a great mathmatician, he hated the classic philosphers with all his heart.

Freud: He had some good ideas (that needed work), but he tortured the mentally ill, and while I could be wrong, he set a more than half century precident of torturing the mentally ill in the name of 'good' (as opposed to the pre-Freud way of torturing them in the name of 'expedience' or religion).

Anyone with out an inquring mind (or talent) who used his status and constant publicity, to delute the existing literature.

[SullenSun]

Favourites:

1) Nietzsche
2) Osho
3) Leo Strauss
4) Heidegger
5) Rousseau

Least Favourite:

1) Kant
2) Quine
3) Rawls
4) Aquinas
5) Bertrand Russell

[skakos]

Likes:

Parmenides
Heraclitus
Zenon
Aristotle
Shestov

Dislikes: No one really. Even though I disagree with the things told by many, I cannot say I "dislike" someone who tries to find the "truth" (even if I think he is wrong in the process). Except many be from those who claim to be philosophers but they are not, like Bertrand Russell or Dawkins.

[NeoTheseus]

Hi Skakos,
Could you expound on your dislike choices, especially Bertrand Russell? Pertaining to Dawkins, is he disqualified as a philosopher because of his evolutionary/scientific stance or his religious/anti-religious stance as an atheistic activist? I know that modern science does not really qualify as philosophy even though at one time in history it was referred to as natural philosophy. To address the religious stance point, isn't religion/ethics a form of philosophy? I know that many philosophers may say religion is steeped in superstition but it is a point of view or outlook on life that assesses value & purpose. It is a lens for processing this reality & a means of seeking & discovering truth; although it may be in error.

Looking forward to your response,

-Richard

[nonsolopossibile]

I'm surprised to see so many people list Russell in their dislikes. I found his book "Power" brilliant, if not verging on prophetic. It still remains for me one of the best resources for understanding totalitarianism, revolutions and authority - which is exciting today. I liked that it turns us back to self-criticism rather than blaming the worlds problems on evil atheists or backwards believers or godless communists, instead we're asked to look at the impulse to power, which is a danger for each of us.

Favourites:
Paulo Freire - education for liberation, for "conscientization", for critical engagement in transforming one's world, for our shared humanisation.
Noam Chomsky - the idea of manufacturing consent, the doctrine of good intentions, ecumenical alliances, but also his democratic-socialist/anarcho-syndacilist ideas, etc.
Karl Marx - filtered through the two above, Freire and Chomsky.
Walter Brueggemann - understanding the Bible as a disjointed and ragged conversation among exiles, reading the prophets as criticism of the empire, and generally being able to trace the contours of the text in ways that are pastorally relevant but also true to the strange, Jewish, ancient, otherworldliness of the message.
Martin Luther King - paradigmatic prophet, does the whole tearing down and building up thing, there's the urgency of "Why We Can't Wait," met with the timelessness of most everything else.
Slavoj Zizek - I like his anecdotal, story-telling, weaving a narrative style, his fresh and enjoyable engagement with old and marginal ideas, from theology and pop-culture, and for making continental philosophy seem relevant to me.
Guru Nanak - Sikhism is incredible.

Least Favourites:
Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris - Religion causes all the problems, say these partisans of the Iraq War, torture, and defenders of U.S. foreign policy. I agree with Chomsky and Hedges, these guys subscribe to the state religion which is more dangerous than any. Tariq Ali bursts the myth of the "clash of civilisations" which the New Atheists profess. I miss Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Russell, Freud, Marx and real atheist critiques.
Ayn Rand - Surely for the same reasons as everyone else. Throw in Milton Friedman and the Chicago School with her.
The Christian Right - Just about all of it.
Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) - for dismissing Liberation Theology as Marxism, for abandoning and denouncing the Church of Latin America for standing up for the poor.
Dante - For being too long, too confusing, too hellish and too influential. Throw in Milton.

[zoot]

Favourites:

1. Paul Feyerabend

and I can't really rank the others, so here they are alphabetically:

Graham Priest
Paul Churchland
Richard Routley/Sylvan
W. V. Quine

with honourable mentions to Bas van Fraassen, David Lewis, and Michael Dummett.

As for disliked... hmm. It depends on who we're counting as a philosopher. Ayn Rand would probably be in there. For the rest, just choose any random philosophers from the continental tradition and its immediate precursors.

A more interesting question for me would be my least favourite analytic philosophers. Offhand, I can't think of any that I really dislike. I recall finding Peter Unger's work to be quite subpar, but it's been a while since I've read him, and some of it did at least have very interesting ideas. I'm also not a fan of early Wittgenstein.

[Kayla]

Richard Dawkins

does richard dawkins even counts as a philosopher

he is as much of a philosopher as l ron hubbard or ayn rand

[Percarus]

Richard Dawkins

does richard dawkins even counts as a philosopher

he is as much of a philosopher as l ron hubbard or ayn rand

Well, I guess Richard Dawkins philosophised under strict parameters in order to come across his erroneous views. His philosophical view being based on what is known by affirmed ‘community' consensus, and not individual experiences. His philosophical outlook in life only takes into account what can be recreated and is immediately seen – Dawkin’s philosophical school, if one were attributed after him, would abstain from conceptual reason and is liable to no hypothesis or taking into account data which ‘may’ seem dubious or never completely verified. It is an isolated school of thought based on pre-fabricated parameters established by key-groups in society. It is highly sociological to say the least imo.

[skakos]

Hi Skakos,
Could you expound on your dislike choices, especially Bertrand Russell? Pertaining to Dawkins, is he disqualified as a philosopher because of his evolutionary/scientific stance or his religious/anti-religious stance as an atheistic activist? I know that modern science does not really qualify as philosophy even though at one time in history it was referred to as natural philosophy. To address the religious stance point, isn't religion/ethics a form of philosophy? I know that many philosophers may say religion is steeped in superstition but it is a point of view or outlook on life that assesses value & purpose. It is a lens for processing this reality & a means of seeking & discovering truth; although it may be in error.

Looking forward to your response,

-Richard

Russell was too much overwhelmed by his atheistic stance. I cannot like a philosopher who is too favourable in one specific opinion and does not let any room for anything else. His teapot example of how he felt about the questions for God, was a good protrayal of how he tended to even ridicule questions which troubled so many great philosophers before him...

As fas as Dawkins is concerned, well this is more obvious. He too has a jealous which tends to dogmatism. And I cannot like that.

What do you think of them?

[Obvious Leo]

Likes Einstein

Dislikes All the rest of them

Regards Leo