I thought I'd add in my own understanding of things, incomplete though it is. I have a few critiques of your explanations, but that's what philosophy is all about. Here goes my own understanding.
Quote:
Originally posted by asaris
I'll try to keep it short. As a consequence, some of these might be less than intelligible.
In metaphysics, Kant's key thought was that, rather than reality shaping our thoughts, our thoughts shape reality. So what we perceive is not reality as it is in itself (he *did* think that this existed as well), but rather reality as it is for us. In ethics, the certain idea is the categorical imperative, "Always act in such a way as to treat others as ends in themselves, and not merely as means."
|
Its important to note that Kant follows from Hume, in a sense. Kant's major work (The Critique of Pure Reason) is pretty damn big and covers a lot of ground.
I've always thought that the statement "Our thoughts shape reality" confused the issue a bit. Its not that our thoughts have any effect on reality itself, but rather that we each individually shape a reality for ourselves, based off of our senses and experiences. It has no connection to what truly exists, since we can never truly know what that is. All the info we have is secondhand, from our senses.
The categorical imperative is big too. The first part basically says only do things you wish were universal maxims (that is, the things would be done by everyone everytime). The means to an ends is key here. A person can never be treated as a means to an ends, even if it is for their own benefit. Respect for the autonomous ends of the individual is a requirement.
A side note on Kantian ethics: Kant believed that a man who did the right thing because he had a duty to do so even if he didn't truly want to was more moral than a man who wanted to do the right thing.
Quote:
|
Heiddegger's main concern was to "ask the meaning of Being". His most famous work, "Being and Time", attempts to come to a formulation of the question through an analysis of the conditions of possibility of human existence.
|
I've never read any Heidegger, so I'll pass here.
Quote:
|
Hume was an "empiricist", meaning he thought that all of our knowledge came from sense perception. On this basis, he denied the existence of causality and the self. He is also well known for an argument 'disprooving' the existence of miracles.
|
Empiricist just about wraps it up. Check out An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Its a decent place to start. See also Berkley.
Quote:
Hegel's main work, "The Phenomenology of Spirit", attempts to trace the development of the human spirit, which is, for Hegel, actualized through the constant tension between the way the self is "in itself" and "for itself". NB -- Sartre is essentially a pessimistic Hegel.
He held the position that, because of the success of science (since Galileo, philosopher have had problems with 'science envy'), the only tasks philosophy should busy itself with are 'language problems'. That is, figuring out how langauge works, and solving apparent contradictions.
|
I'm pretty rusty on my Hegel. I would argue that Sartre wasn't pessimistic at all though. I think he's misunderstood by most philosophy students, especially those steeped in the analytical tradition.
I also think Hegel was only partially right about philosophy being about language problems. Language problems creep into philosophy quite a bit, but there is more there. Philosophy is thinking about thinking. Post-modern philosophers have some very interesting things to say about the nature of language itself. Thats for a different time and place though.
Quote:
|
Nietzsche believed that most people are sheep. I want to note that this was not because he was an elitist -- on some level, he certainly believed that all people were capable of leading a fulfilled life, but most choose not to. His version of the fulfilled life is notably characterized by virtues like strength and power -- he believed that the truth is frightening, and in order to face the truth, one must be strong.
|
Nietzsche is a tough nut to crack. The Portable Nietzsche is as good a place to start as any. I'm not sure I have anything else to add here. I'm still wrapping my head around him.
Quote:
|
The difficulty with Socrates is that he did not leave behind any written work. The only things we know about him come from Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes (and principally Plato). He seems to have held a doctrine of 'forms', semi-mystical objects that instantiate various properties of objects -- for example, the form of justice, or redness, or whatever. The goal of the philosopher is to throw off the illusionary 'real-ness' of this world in order to view the world of the forms. He is also well known for the "Socratic Method", in which an instructor teaches a student by asking him/her questions.
|
Its important to note that Socrates didn't write anything. The world knows him as a Plato (his student) wrote him. Early Platonic works are more heavily influenced by Socrates, but later on Plato continues to express his own ideas through the mouthpiece of Socrates.
The biggest things I've gotten from Socrates are the Socratic Method and that knowing what you don't know makes you wiser than someone who thinks he does know. Phheww. That was one helluva sentence.
Quote:
(Mill)
Believed that the goodness of an action was dependent on its utility -- the best action would be the action that made the most people the happiest. Almost no philosophers today are pure utilitarians.
|
Dead on here. Although utilitarism mixed with other philosophies has arisen in recent years.
This isn't quite that simple. Plato had some pretty big ideas on his own. His major work, The Republic, was all him. He just continued using Socrates as a mouthpiece in his writing. There are a lot of important ideas about political philosophy raised in The Republic.
Quote:
|
Said something about everything. Probably the best known Aristotelian doctrines are that everything is composed of form and matter. The form makes something what it is, and the matter -- well, pretty clear what this is. In his ethical theory, he taught that every virtue is a mean between two extremes; so, for example, courage is a mean between cowardice and foolhardiness.
|
Aristotle was Plato's student as Plato was Socrates'. Aristotlian thought ruled the ancient and medevial worlds. Almost all of it is junk.
He's still important to read though, because his ideas influenced so many. They can be seen influencing philosophers for 2000 years. Not too shabby.
Quote:
|
Hobbes believed that, in order to prevent violence within the state, the state needed to have a supreme monarch, one which had no duties to the people except maintaining his own power. His famous quote is that, in the state of nature (before government), the life of man is "nasty, brutish, and short".
|
I can tell by reading this bit here you're not a political philosopher.
Hobbes is much more complex than that. So much more, he deserves his own thread. I won't get into it much, but his ideas about the nature of man and the formation of societies was the beginning of modern political philosophy. The Leviathon is his major work. A must on your philosophical journey.
Quote:
|
Descartes. He believed that, since what he had been taught contained many errors, it was best to start from the beginning, doubting everything that was possible to be doubted. He noted that one cannot doubt one's own existence, since the existence of the doubt presupposes someone to be doubting -- this is the origin of his famous cogito ergo sum -- I think therefore I am.
|
Descartes is huge in philospher. His Meditations On First Philosophy is a pretty good place to start after you read some Plato.
I've always been rather found of Sartre's refutation of Descartes' "I think therefore I am." Sartre said "You think, therefore you have thoughts." Nothing more than that. Brilliant. Understanding that really opened some doors in my head.
Quote:
|
So that's 3000 years of philosophy in a nutshell. Sorry, but I don't know anything about Schlegel, other than that he was a German philosopher of the 19th century. [/B]
|
I don't know much about Schlegel either.