Greatest Philosopher Poll

[altariel]

In Our Time is running a poll to discover who the nation (or, at least, the section that listens to Radio 4) thinks is the Greatest Philosopher Ever. Julian Baggini put a persuasive case for David Hume, but I voted for John Stuart Mill, because some stupid people recently said he was harmful, and also because so far as I know he was the only one on the list to write about women. Also, half a pint of shandy would make me feel ill too.

Comments

[archbishopm.livejournal.com]

Sorry, gotta go Hume.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Reasonable enough.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

But Aristotle's a bugger for the bottle...

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I only drink to be sociable...

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

Cheers, Plato!

Off to the supermarket now because it's Schopenauer...

[the-wild-iris.livejournal.com]

Very interesting - thanks for the link! I don't feel qualified to vote, but I'm tempted by Aristotle simply because he was so clear-sighted, logical, and always 'concrete, never abstract' as the Imagists would say…

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Oh I wasn't qualified to vote at all, that's never stopped me yet!

[the-wild-iris.livejournal.com]

Thinking of the 'Twenty Greatest Americans' list stopped me :)

[espresso-addict.livejournal.com]

I went for JSM too. There are a few odd omissions, Confucius in particular.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Confucius made it to the long list.

O Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

[(Anonymous)]

Heidegger revolutionized philosophy last century. But everything is just a footnote to Plato. But Marx actually reached beyond the academy. And where the hell is Hegel on this list?!

I ended up going for Kant. Yes, his views on women and Africans are execrable and make me sick to read, but in theory, he would be forced by his own universalism to admit their equal capacities as human beings.

On the positive side, he's got to be one of the most significant footnotes to Plato ever, made a "Copernican revolution" that started German idealism on its way to completing the project of modern philosophy, got more out of David Hume than Hume could possibly stomach or comprehend, and despite the trammels of ideology still gave us an excellent picture of the marginalization of the academy.

He's also the touchstone of two major schools of philosophical thought, so we can't do philosophy without him. And he undercut utilitarianism before utilitarians knew what hit them, as evidenced by Mill's rather crapulous critique of Kant.

Go 'Manny!

Dwim

Re: O Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

[altariel.livejournal.com]

An informed opinion, not fair! (I thought you might enjoy this poll *g*)

On the minus side for Kant: unreadable.

Re: O Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

[(Anonymous)]

On the minus side for Kant: unreadable.

"I saw that courageous and bright minds have gained mastery of my Critique despite its thorny paths... These worthy men have that happy combination of thorough insight with a talent for lucid exposition (the very talent that I am not aware of in myself)..." (2nd edition Preface, Critique of Pure Reason).

I always admire Kant for admitting up front what others transform into a philosophical issue, with greater or lesser justificaction.

Dwim

Re: O Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Aw, that's quite endearing, really!

Re: O Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

[(Anonymous)]

Gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't it? :D

Re: O Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

[altariel.livejournal.com]

*pets Kant*

[altariel.livejournal.com]

From the bits I've read/listened to, the people defending them seem to set their own terms.

[martal0712.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I voted Plato. His philosophy has its issues (for example, try sitting down and thinking about Crito in light of civil disobedience), but he does make a lot of good points. But even if I do not always agree with him, he is very good at making me think through why I don't agree with him, and I know other people have had the same reaction. There is just something about him that gets my brain philosophising.

The fact that we're still reading him 2500-odd years later says something about his longevity, and I remember how surprised Dwim was all those months ago when she found out I had never read him -- you can no less be an aspiring philosopher without reading him than you could be, for example, an aspiring scholar of British lit without reading Shakespeare. So he definitely gets the vote for influence in my book.

But the greatest factor in my voting for him was probably that he makes me laugh -- a trait that's not necessarily that valuable in academia, but this is a pop culture poll so what the hey... reading his dialogues reminds me of an internet flame war.

Marta

[altariel.livejournal.com]

reading his dialogues reminds me of an internet flame war

Heh, I like that!

The Republic was the only bit of Plato I had to read at uni (on a history of political thought paper), and I focused on modern history/sociology, so I imagine you're well ahead of me.

I didn't know you read this journal, btw - welcome!

[altariel.livejournal.com]

We aim to please! :-D

And the winner is...

[(Anonymous)]

Marx!

Well, I concede an honorable defeat, then. Good on you, Karl, show 'em how critique is done!

Dwim

Re: And the winner is...

[altariel.livejournal.com]

It was inevitable, really.