[quote]one doesn’t need to look much further than the state of epistemology (theory of knowledge) earlier this century beginning with Gettier… a more fruitless exercise could hardly be conceptualized…
(though it showed us that necessary and sufficient conditions are not forthcoming so we might want to make sure conceptual analysis of this variety isn’t the only tool in the philosophical toolbox)[/quote]
I just finished my senior thesis on virtue epistemology. I can’t think of any better tool than conceptual analysis; can you? Moreover, why must we reach the final analysis for the process of analysis to be valuable? Couldn’t we get progressively closer to an adequate analysis?
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I’m a philosophy major, and I actually enjoy reading philosophy…So, who are your favorite philosophers, topics of interest, ethical issues, morality, etc…
I’ll start: I like Kant and Nietzsche, especially Kant’s ethical ideals. I also think Nietzsche would’ve been a great lifting partner, his stuff always gets me pumped![/quote]
Hitler. Mussolini. Terrance McKenna.[/quote]
LOL!
OP: Nietzsche was a fucking dementia patient. Much of his ‘philosophy’ was train of thought drivel. He also took Shakespeare’s throw-away line ‘nothing is either good nor bad but thinking makes it so’ as a fucking philosophical concept worthy of deep exploration.
Philosophy? Start with Aristotle and Plato, end with Leo Strauss via Hegel, Hobbes and maybe a bit of Machiavelli. Don’t take ‘the Prince’ too seriously though. ‘Discourses on Livy’ is the important work.
NOTE: Plato’s Republic is interesting but little more than 4th Century Communism with child abuse and arranged marriages thrown in. Kant, Descartes, Spinosa, Locke, Hume, Rousseau etc, all good but don’t let them turn you into a fucking liberal.[/quote]
Albert J. Nock
Richard Weaver
T.S. Eliot
Russel Kirk
GK Chesterton
Edmund Burke
Henry Newman
John Adams
Randolph and Calhoun
Tocqueville
John Quincy Adams
Disraeli
I’m not used to thinking of this stuff as philosophy - but of course it is!
I enjoyed Sartre’s plays very much, too. Camus. Beckett. Theatre of the Absurd.
John Barth. The End of the Road (out of print now, I think). Loved this very much indeed. Novel… But the 3 main characters are personifications of different varieties of nihilism or something like that. Giles Goat Boy… Academia. Ha.
Just to chime in on the convo at the beginning of the thread, Kantianism and Utilitarianism are basically two sides of the same coin. Go grab a copy of Kant’s first Critique and go to the Canon of Pure Reason chapter. This is basically the point after Kant goes all crazy on Rationalistic Metaphysics and comes to the conclusion that the kind of reasoning present in metaphysical discourse still has its say in the realm of morality. What’s more, is that reason’s telos is the attainment of happiness within the moral sphere. My contention is that Kant seeks happiness through heuristic via the categorical imperative whereas Mill wants you to just shoot for happiness.
As per the original question, I have strong sympathies for Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Hume. Also Aristotle and Heidegger to a lesser extent. For me the questions of self-consciousness and recognition are fascinating especially in light of how they play out in morality, ethical life and politics.
BTW, I’m brushing up on some existentialism. Great stuff! I have a few questions for you guys (more like opinions).
Existentialism essentially says that people can do whatever they want. The individual has the ultimate freedom to do whatever. What, then, should one do? If I can do literally anything at any point, what is good to existentialists?
Does existentialism dictate right vs wrong?
I also had the thought that people give up their freedom to avoid the responsibility of their actions. Let’s get this going!