Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

which one has enligtened you the most?

You didn't list everyone.......how about me? OK....but not everyone...there are so many....I like pieces and bits of many...like spices....Spices of life.

moustapha akkad if your reading this i am a big halloween fan ive been watching it for years. I hope that you please make the halloween 9 or the halloween 10 to be Leatherface Vs. Micheal Myers: The Halloween Chainsaw Massacre . The would be the ultimate gift to me. michael and pinhead or jason would suck. I know its just a rumor for now that its even coming out but please if you can make it happen i would greatly appreciate it. i even have a plot for it Dr. Loomis orders Michael from a maximum security prison to mexico to await to get executed but on the way michael kills all the guards and they end up in texas where michael meets the sawyers and leatherface. meanwhile killing other bystandards micheal and leatherface battle it off to the finish what a movie that would be. Laurie Strode son is the nephew of michael myers so he gets scared every halloween but her son wants to marry the girl who survived the texas chainsaw massacre killings back in 78. And they both are in for the time of their lives while they get michael myers and leatherface face to face to bury their nightmares for good.

Damn I needed more than one vote.
Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant and David Hume

Friedrich Nietzsche and aristotle are mine

Socrates, Plato, and Nietzsche, especially his thoughts about ethics and religion.

why arent i on that poll? i have deep intimate knowlege about the universe that you people cant even fathom.

Ren and Stimpy....they have it down pat....

Nietzsche is overrated. I go with Socrates and Satre.

St. Thomas Aquinas is cool in my book. *wink*

Marx, Confucious, and Plato.

Lao Tzu, hands down. Or maybe Sun Tzu.
No, definately Lao Tzu.

MICHEL FOUCAULT

Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Hobbes
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill

Yike Foucault bwerg

Originally posted by Fire
Yike Foucault bwerg

My Philosophers are better than yours...........now that that is established who is he?

Look it up, too bored to explain. never heard anything about him in my Philosophy class only in my communication sciences.

Sun Tzu

Aristophanes
Kant
Mikhail Bolshev
Socrates

Who is your favourite philosopher(s) and why?

Mine are Plato (his theory of Forms is immaculate, as it touches on the very essence of being and the paradox of the absolute) and Nietzsche for his incredibly sensible moral philosophy, views on society, ideas on truth and interpretation, view on Christianity, and many more inspiring ideas.

Who are yours?

Why does nobody here post their own original philosophical theory? Here's mine:


Philosophia Effugiturus


Being as such is in any instance of an ontological cogitation, in an absurd struggle towards escaping from itself. If it is the case that Being as such is such a fundamental, unintelligible problem then in the event of its own resolution to its being at all, it will dissolve into non-Being as such. For if the complete and absolute conception of itself as the Presence and Absence at all has been reached - thus, if there is no greater possibility than itself, i.e. that which makes it as Being possible at all - it would not Be anymore at all, for it would have dissolved itself out of the sheer infinite transcendence beyond its own possibility. There would as well be no nothingness or non- existence, because there would be no Being. But now there arises the problem of to whom or to what instance this property of problem and resolve really belongs. Is it merely a psychological dilemma? It cannot be merely psychological as Being as such is Being as such through and through. It means that there are no gaps of nothingness in between Being as a whole. Being, as we shall see, is a solid, static continuity.

It is one essence. No individuals can have predicaments as there are none. Any problem as such is a struggling not even within Being, but as Being itself. From our point of view there is only one abstract essence; and our perspective is no perspective at all. It is continuous in and as Being – present and absent at the same time. Moreover, if being is essential an unresolved problem – it is an infinite singularity, as we shall see, of presence and absence at all -it is an oneness absurdly struggling as itself. And it seems not capable of escaping itself and its possibility. For every resolve is merely an event that is allowed by something greater - indeed another problem - than itself. And it is indeed all there really is, for it is Is. Is is as itself. As presence is something there need not be, it is a problem trying to become nothing. But it can not as it requires an anticipation of non-Being which is ontologically not a possibility. Indeed non-Being is not a possibility as possibility as such is existent.

The fundamental condition on which all previous philosophical endeavours has been actuated is that of the problematic cogitation subjected to the absurd absolute of unintelligible infinity of existence as such. While this ontological contemplation is eventual not via Being as such, but continuous in and as Being proper, it has not in any instance (as in the history of philosophical participation) really expressed itself literally as possessing the will or anticipation towards the ontological escape proper, where this escape is not an abandon of life, but indeed an escape from existence or, Being as such. For is it not the true sense of any instance of ontological analyses to resolve itself, i.e. to ultimately free the entire problem from existing at all. If that is the case, then existence or the ontological dilemma itself which is such a fundamental problem, as we are beings subjected to the forces and unknown of mere nature and are as such smaller than our environment and as we are not in any way capable of viewing existence from above or creating our own existence or being as such, should be the one true subject and object from which we would want to escape from into complete non-existence. But indeed there is the impossibility of such an absurd event. It is the problem of existence we are dealing with and not the problem of non-existence. We merely have to ask the question: Can there be or are there non-existence as such? The reality is that the idea of non-existence is generated by an existing entity or process. Existence as such can not contemplate non- existence as such – it is contra-definitive, i.e. defeating the essential definition and dimensions of existence as such. Existence does not posses qualities of non- existence in order to anticipate non-existence as such, for existence is wholly existence without any non-existential attributes. No entity or Individuality can anticipate its entire, absolute opposite, because the object of definition of opposites as such are to completely distinguish between to complete opposites - there are no common qualities. But then, opposites proper are not possible.

That would mean that the two supposed opposites originated from two opposite Beings as such, for if they did not then they do have a common origin or essence and consequently are not entirely different from one another. In other words, throughout the whole of existence, nothing can be opposite of the other - all must be tints or mere reflections of one fundamental Being. And the upshot of such a conclusion is that the whole of existence simply must be a solid oneness or unit. There can not be open spaces of discontinuity or non-being in between Existence as such. Existence is existence through and through.

Søren Kierkegaard


"Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it."




generally. his point of view is in the flow of existentialism.

"generally. his point of view is in the flow of existentialism."

ha-ha! He is the father of it!

and not Sarte? i wasn't sure

oh Kierkegaard the lover of the Danish state church, irony is that his name translates to Churchyard/Cemetery

really? i didn't know about that

Churchyard!

I don't like Kierkegaard - proving god, etc.

i'm gonna say that voltaire is an awesome philosopher.....just cuz....

I believe that most of us are inspired by philosophers and their views. What is your favourite philosopher and why?

I have read about this philosopher by the name of Krishnamurti. The best part of him is that he does not want to acknowledge himself as a philosopher and even rejected the world teacher award. A great guy right.

I always liked Heidegger.

My vote is for George Carlin.

dont forget philo, how could u?

I found it quite easy, not sure of the success rate of anyone else.

Sun Tzu

i would say confucious....Very wise he was.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Sun Tzu

hehe....INDEED!

but hopefully we do not belive in these people to much

Originally posted by Bardock42
My Philosophers are better than yours...........now that that is established who is he?

Michel Foucault argued several things which I found correlated exactly with my thinking -
First, he argued that truth is relative, it is not absolute. Truth is reached by agreement, it is a consensus formed between various parties with different, vested interests in having one particular truth accepted as the general truth. This truth therefore changes from time to time, and locality to locality.

Secondly, and linked to the first argument, Foucault argued that knowledge equals power. Having knowledge, and being regarded as having knowledge (like a professor, or an expert in a particular field) means that people are more likely to accept your opinions/arguments as the truth. Therefore, if you are regarded as having knowledge on a particular field, you have power, since people are likely to accept your truth as their truth.

Thirdly, Foucault argued that power is a relation. Power is not static, it is dynamic. If power were a “thing”, instead of a relation (like a gun or an army or something) it would be impossible to wrestle power away from somebody. To illustrate, somebody ruling a country would rule that country forever, and absolutely, if power were not a relation, and a dynamic relation at that. Because power is a relation, and relations change, however, it is possible for governments to change and topple

and some say before Confucius there was Lao-tzu writer of the Tao Te Ching........the writings are so money.

I am a fan of Kafka. Aristotle is great as is Karl Marx. Marx was awesome - his philosophy does not work in practice, but its flawless on paper.

Newsflash in between

Karl Marx recently came top of a poll to find the public‘ s Greatest Philosopher. The poll was organised by BBC Radio 4‘ s In Our Time programme, hosted by Melvyn Bragg. Listeners were asked to nominate their all-time greatest thinker, and the twenty most popular names formed a shortlist which was then used as the basis of a vote on the Internet.

I like Marx in theory, as well, but he underestimated the power of capitalism. It doesn't detract from a compelling argument, but I find Foucault more useful in trying to understand the flow of power.

If you are looking at Marx's theory in relation to power, however, a useful concept, hegemony, was developed by Antonio Gramsci, another Marxist

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am a fan of Kafka.


Kafka's a nutter.

Francis Bacon or Richard Feynman