k1ng

I was thinking about this the other day. When I think of great philosphers the first names that come to mind are Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato to name a few. My question is who are the great philosphers of today? Are there any? Are you a great philospher only after you've been dead for thousands of years?

I would be interested in reading some modern philosophy.

Thanks.

tecoyah

Much of todays philosophy is tied into physics. There a quite a few books and trains of thought that persue this avenue.

Tao of physics
Dancing Wu Li masters

To name a few.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

asaris

Let's see here.

Alasdair MacIntyre: "After Virtue" is his best known work, though I've heard good things about "Three Rival Version of Moral Inquiry".

Charles Taylor (though he's recently deceased): His main work is "Sources of the Self"

Richard Rorty (I don't think too highly of him, but alot of others do)
"Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" is his best known work, but it might be better to start with "Contingency, Irony, Solidarity", since "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" assumes some knowledge of the contemporary state of epistemology.

Derrida (yes, he's still alive): "Of Grammatology" is his best known work. "Differance" and "The Ends of Man" are important essays. It's helpful when reading Derrida to have a good grasp of Heidegger first.

Alain Badiou: His major work, "Event and Being", is as far as I know not translated into English yet. Check out "Infinite Thought" and "Ethics". Again, it's helpful to know Heidegger, and also Levinas, to understand Badiou.

There are, of course, many others I could mention, but most of the others are of limited general interest. What tecoyah says is technically false; while most English speaking philosophers pay some attention to physics, very little of what they produce is actually "tied into physics". The books and authors I've listed here are some of what you'd actually study in a university philosophy program.

But many popular works which are philosophical are tied into physics. In this vein, I might recommend Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which is the most important book on the philosophy of science in the last 40 years.

If you have more specific interests (ethics, say, or political philosophy), I'm happy to give more recommendations.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

CSflim

Just so you are aware, very few professionals actually take these books seriously at all (be they philosophers or scientists).

Tao of Physics summed up in three lines:
1. Quantum mechanics, that brilliantly sucessful flagship theory of modern science, is deeply mysterious and hard to understand.
2. Eastern mystics have always been deeply mysterious and hard to understand.
3. Therefore eastern mystics must have been talking about quantum mechanics all along.

The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon spring to mind.

Now I am not at all against seeing science and philosophy over-lapping. In fact, as far as I am concerned, trying to seperate them is entirely futile. How can you ask deep questions about the world, if you don't even know the nature of what you are dealing with? The problem arises when scientific concepts are taken out of context, be they by pop writers like Frijov Capra (sp?) or "serious" "accademic" "respectible" writers like Lacan, Deluze and Guattari.

Now I hold no particularly strong opinons on the main points of these postmodernist writers, which to be honest appear to be nothing more than fairly banal observations, seriously "languaged up" so as to appear profound. However don't ask me...most of the time what these writers are saying is entirely opaque to me (not that I have gone to any great length to 'decode' them).

Regardless, my objection comes when these people try to incorporate scientific and pseduo-scientific concepts into their writings, without justification (or even understanding in many cases).

So I reccomend Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's imfamous work Intellectual Impostures (or Fashionable Nonsense as it is titled in America). these guys are not philosophers (and most certainly don't claim to be), but they 'critique' various works of modern philosophers (mostly French) and highlight when these people are obviously talking out of their arses.

I repeat I hold no beef with the rest of what these people have to say, but it certainly casts doubts on their respectability, seeing that they purposely attempt to bamboozle their readers with jargon for no justifiable reason.

So I recommend this book, not as philosophy, per se, by rather as a 'vaccine' against much of the nonsense which passes for philosophy these days. (and also because it makes for highly entertaining, laugh out loud, reading )

EDIT: on re-reading, it appears that I was lumping in Capra with the other authors mentioned. This was not at all my intention. The lower half of this post is not directed in any way towards Capra.
But, if you are looking at book dealing with "Quantum Mysticism", I suggest The Unconscious Quantum by Victor J. Stenger, though I have not yet read it.

__________________

QuasiMojo

Baltasar Gracian- maybe not a philosopher per se. However, he wrote splendidly on matters of moral subtlety in his work
"The Art of Worldly Wisdom."

Its is filled with much insight and is rife with wonderful human contridictions. Gracian was a worldly Jesuit scholar from Spain
300 years ago.

__________________
AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

filtherton

Kurt Vonnegut
Arthur C. Clarke
David Cross

and for my own purposes, me.

rsl12

If we're just talking about latter 20th century philosophers, here's a few to consider (and i should mention, i'm no philosophy major, so i'm sure others can point you in better directions):

Karl popper: had some interesting insights as to the nature of the scientific process and the important avenues of philosophical exploration (focusing on finding and figuring out profound problems rather than on word meanings)

Bertrand Russell: determined that it's possible to find a contradiction in any logical system, and therefore there is no such thing as 'perfect' mathematics.

martin buber: kind of on the pop-psychology side. like hegel, he's kind of hard to read, but he focuses on the nature of relationships and was quite influential.

jean-paul sartre: existentialism. 'nuff said.

john rawls: political philosopher who emphasized that the purpose of law should be viewed in terms of social justice.

also check out everything going on in artificial intelligence/cognitive psychology/philosophy of mind. there's a bunch of people there (turing, minsky, etc)

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

rsl12

it should be noted that the 'great' philosophers way back when had all sorts of BIG notions about everything. These days, philosophers tend to specialize in one thing or another--recently there hasn't been a REALLY great philosopher that revolutionized everything the way einstein did for science. the closest one I could think of is wittgenstein and the logical positivists, who caused a significant shift in all philosophical works produced thereafter.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

asaris

People say that philosophy never progresses, but thanks to the Logical Positivists, we know that to be false. Logical Positivism is one of the few philosophical schools that has been thoroughly refuted. So at least there's something we now know to be false...

As far as 'revolutionary' thinkers go, Kuhn comes to mind as a possible example. Certainly Rawls deserves to be mentioned, since he took a nearly dead field of philosophy (political science) and brought it thoroughly back to life. As far as thinkers who have a view on just about anything, well, a view worth reading on just about anything, nothing comes to mind. Since Hegel (or maybe Marx), philosophy really hasn't been about building a system, but Badiou and Heidegger seem closer to this than most others.

And not to be snobbish or anything, but I wouldn't never consider any of the figures you mention, filtherton, to be philosophers.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Charlatan

John Ralston Saul
Michael Ignatieff

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

CSflim

You've got it the wrong way around here. Bertand Russell was convinced that not only was there a perfect mathermatical system, but it was his and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica that was such a system.

It was Kurt Godel who proved, in his famous incompleteness theorem, that
a)The Principia Mathematic was inherently flawed and more importantly
b)ANY mathematical system would also be similarly flawed (assuming it was "powerful" enough)

Regardless, Bertrand Russell is a very interesting philosopher, and had many powerful arguments against religion.

__________________

filtherton

Everyone is a philosopher.

CSflim

Personally I think that by far the most interesting philosophical field at the moment is that of philosophy of mind.
How is it that inanimate, unthinking matter can create consciousness?

Of course the boundary between philosophy and science are very blurred in this case (as they should be, as I stated above), but it is still definitely philosophy. There is not an accepted groundwork even of what are right questions to ask are, let alone an agreement on their answers!

Some interesting authors on this subject:

Daniel C. Dennett - puts forward very strongly the physicalist/functionalist view point of consciousness, and insists that this is all there is.
I really enjoy the work of Dennett. He writes clearly, and unambiguously, which is always a good thing. His argument are always well though out, logical, and usually pretty damn water-tight!
He also gets first prize for most arrogantly titled book of all time: Consciousness Explained. Well worth reading, despite the fact that it does nothing of the sort!
Also has written on the implications of Darwinism (Darwin's Dangerous Idea)

David J. Chalmers - claims functionalism is correct, but that it needs a proper metaphysical groundwork. Puts forward the dual aspect theory. (Dualism...but not as you know it!)
Very interesting guy. Breathing a fresh outlook into the mind-body problem. His book is The Conscious Mind: In search of a fundamental theory.

John R. Searle - Insists that consciousness is a biological property, like digestion or respiration. Most famous for his thoroughly refuted "Chinese Room" argument.
Can't say I particularly warm to Searle. He is arrogant, and abusive in his writings. His arguments are shallow and weak. They appear to be the voice of "common sense" at a first glance, but digging deeper they fall apart. (Always remember: Common sense is a method not a conclusion)
He always insists that consciousness is a result of the mysterious "causal powers of the brain", but never seems to explicitly state what these are.
Regardless, since his views are so well known, it would be a good idea to read some of his work. Minds Brains and Science is probably his most well known book.

Thomas Nagel - believes that the mind-body problem is in principle unsolvable by humans. I have yet to read a book by him, only some of his papers, including the polemic "What is it like to be a bat" available online here. Interesting and well written paper, though I don't necessarily accept his conclusions. I believe that it is far too premature to make decisions of this matter, when you consider how young the field is. (Young that is, from the sense that a certain level of empirical knowledge is required to even consider properly thinking about such questions)

Douglas Hofstadter – author of the Pulitzer Prize winning masterpiece Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. He is always a delight to read, and is very playful with words and structure. This book has been referred to as the “Bible of Artificial Intelligence”. I’m not sure how true that is, but it is certainly a wonderful experience reading it! He also published a book with Daniel C. Dennett: The Mind’s I, which was a collection of papers and short stories by various authors all in some way related to the mind/body problem. The book alternates between these various papers, and “reflections” on them written by Hofstadter and Dennett.

Roger Penrose – claims that intelligent computers are impossible, and that in order to understand the mind we need to delve into quantum mechanics. But this is no speculative nonsense, Penrose most certainly does not fall under the derogatory term “Quantum Mystic”. In his book The Emperor’s New Mind he attempts to rigorously prove that there are things which the human mind can do that are decidedly non-algorithmic. His main arguments lies with Godel’s Theorem, and believes that in order to understand the brain, we need to first arrive at a theory of Quantum Gravity (the elusive “theory of everything”). The book is written so that it is accessible to the layperson without a grounding in physics or mathematics. So about half of this book is nothing to do with the mind at all! He brings you up to speed on so many relevant issues: Theoretical Computer Science (Turing Machines, Complexity Theory, the Church-Turing thesis, the Halting Problem etc.), Mathematics (Fractals, imaginary numbers, Godel, Cantor, non-Euclidian Geometry, etc), classical physics (Newton, Maxwell, Einstein’s special and general relativity) Quantum Mechanics (Two-Slit Experiment, EPR paradox, Bohr, Schrodinger etc) Cosmology (Black Holes, Big Bang, Singularities, etc.) and the Arrow of Time(Thermodynamics, etc)
Wow! After all of this, the book gets back on track, to speak explicitly on minds and brains in the last two chapters!
I believe that his entire argument, however is based on a logical fallacy, but regardless, the book is well worth reading as it is highly stimulating, and you will undoubtedly learn a lot about the various scientific and mathematical topics raised.
I would nearly recommend this book as the finest introduction to quantum mechanics for the layperson! I have read a number of popularisations on quantum mechanics, and I find that all too often they stress the “woah” factor far too much, and don’t actually explain any thing at all! The highly dubious “Copenhagen Interpretation” seems always to be pushed, leaving the “realist” theories behind in the dust! Not so with Penrose.



Ok! I think I’ve written enough for the moment!
Perhaps it would be wrong of me to claim that these are “The great philosophers of today”. Regardless, the whole field is absolutely fascinating.

__________________

Yakk

The flaw is a very subtle one:
"There is a question you can ask the system cannot answer."

And it is more than just about Mathematical systems. It is any system where:
1> You can determine if you are saying nonsense easily. (basically, this means a decent logical system)

2> It contains enough power to talk about the counting numbers (1, 2, 3, etc)

Other brutally important philosphers off the top of my head:
Descarts
Pascal
Einstien

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Ustwo

Ok I'll be honest.

I don't why people get so interested in philosophers.

I look at most of it as mental masturbation. A substitute for unknown truths.

They can be very clever, and convey their ideas well, but in the end its mostly hot air.

In short Philosophy is what some smart people like to play with when they aren’t doing something useful.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

CSflim

We already had this discussion on this board: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=44187

__________________

Ustwo

Or maybe you just perceive that we did

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

rsl12

While it's true that there's plenty of philosophy PhDs going around full of hot air, I'd say that there are other liberal arts majors more suceptible to hot-airness than philosophy (eg, literature studies, history, journalism, fine arts). Some philosophers write in cramped and unclear styles (hegel, buber) and i can't stand most of them (though i kind of dig buber). Most of the others, however, are trying to follow some sort of rigor in their thinking. Read descartes--very readable. see how he tries to make logic be the basis for his arguments (even though he fails). In general, I'd say it's reasonably hard to be a serious philosopher and be full of hot air. take a logic class. you would be impressed.

Why people are interested in philosophy: what do you think democracy is all about? who came up with the idea? it didn't come out of nowhere--it's pretty revolutionary when you think about it. Take a look at the declaration of independence, the us constitution and then read rousseau, locke. you will see tons and tons of resemblance. all this stuff about artificial intelligence--who comes up with ideas to say what intelligence is? what inspires the direction of research? why did the great minds of the renaissance base their research into the world of men, when the previous age had been completely directed by God? In iraq, what's the proper way to frame the new constitution? science will not answer the question, and just taking 5 random smart people's opinion won't do the trick either. Is there such thing as a universal logic, something that all sentinent beings in any universe would have to realize? (it's been proven that no, there isn't.) what guides the way you live? you can look at religious texts to find answers, but you can also take some insights from reading philosophers, old and new. (on metaphysical issues, no progress can really be made, but being able to see life through different models is as useful the same way that reading more than one math textbook is useful.) Why don't most people follow the bible word for word? The arguments of philosophers such as thomas aquinas, kierkegaard, pascal has smoothed out the rough passages in it, so that reasonable people can cite intelligent sources showing that you don't need to take the bible completely literally.

re masturbation: philosophy is intellectual masturbation, the same way arts are masturbation--you draw from your own mind, excite it, create something out of it, that gives you pleasure, satisfaction. no argument there. re a substitute for unknown truths--that may be true, but an engineer will substitute an empirical formula for a process he/she doesn't fully understand. nothing wrong with that--gotta use what you got.

re: something to play with when you're not doing something useful: probably true--only rich and opulent societies can afford to keep philosophers on a paycheck. same thing with artists, architects, theoretical physicists, space exploration, marine biologists, bead makers, professional athletes, fashion designers, cosmetologists, etc etc.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

rsl12

woops, my bad.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

filtherton

Hellooooooo Nurse!
About time we saw things eye to eye.

QuasiMojo

then, when all words, thoughts and ideas utterly confound thee...
mayhap you can take solace in the Principia Discordia. mmhmm

__________________
AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

noahfor

Bill Hicks

tecoyah

Kinda like you just did?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

asaris

filtherton-- if everyone is a philosopher, the word is meaningless. And I don't like to see the already too large quantity of meaningless words to proliferate.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Ustwo

But he is correct, EVERYONE is a philosopher. Its a part of human nature. Not everyone is an interesting philosopher, and not everyone is good at articulation of their ideas. Perhaps the great philosophers were not so much great philosophers but good writers and teachers. Being able to explain yourself logically, and in such a way that doesn't bore people to tears is not a common trait.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

Everyone is a philosopher. That doesn't make the word meaningless, it just robs it of its elitest pretensions. On a parallel note, everyone is an artist too. Do you think that FACT takes anything away from the art of van gogh or warhol or whoever?


On a side note: If you ask me, i am the greatest philosopher of my day. For any other philosophy to have value to me i must evaluate it against my own philosophies and decide whether it is valid or relevant for my purposes here on earth. That act is one of philosophy and has as much, if not more, value as the act of creating and disseminating an idea. If not for the philosopher in all of us, philosophy would be a complete waste of time.

Redjake

That's funny as hell

Breakfast of Champions - best book ever

__________________
Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

mr sticky

You know guys, everyone is a philosopher much like everyone is a scientist. We're all figuring stuff out. But, some are better and more experienced. Philosophy is about personal growth. And speaking of grown...

We have several good philosophers in our midst:

Ustwo- you wouldn't be here if you didn't find this a wee bit interesting.

Filtherton-The best philosopher of our day, just ask him.

lurkette-who always seems to able to dissect me to the bone (and I dig her for that).

And ARTelevision-a real tried and true visionary.

I'm not intentionally leaving anyone out, but these are those that have responded to my posts most profoundly. I'm relatively new to the boards, so take this with a grain.

Philosophy has never saved a life...It's never made a bridge...but, it's made think about what's on the other side of each!

__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

Orgature

Kurt Vonnegut
Chuck Palahniuk
Trey Parker
Matt Stone
Philip K Dick
Terrance Mkenna+
Hunter S Thompson+

-crosses fingers-

filtherton

^^^^^
Nicely done, sir.

MojoRisin

George Carlin!

__________________
Dropping a barbell he points to the sky and says "The suns not yellow, It's chicken!"

Thagrastay

Lebell
tecoya
csfilm
asaris
filtherton

Hunter S Thompson

__________________
"That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

tecoyah

All modesty aside....I couldn't agree more.
These are truly brilliant minds, seriously.
I do find it interesting that these are very intellectual people, and Thagrastay seems to dislike us all so much.....hmmm.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

gpws

this is a trick question!! There are none! Why limit philosophy to "modern" thinkers?
If you think Chuck Palahniuk, Trey Parker, Matt Stone
Philip K Dick, Terrance Mkenna, and Hunter S Thompson are philosophers then you need to learn how to read.
At least you didn't tack on Ayn Rand!!

You forgot Peter Singer... he thinks humans are just as valuable as animals. His ideas are quite popular wouldn't you say?
Sounds like the camp comandant Amon Goethe in Schlinder's List!!

Also, don't confuse the quasi-spiritual musings of scientists with useful philosophy. Notice how they create a supernaturalism at the fringes of knowledge... yet lack the humility to admit that they can not know everthing with perfect certainty. This is called "ironic science".

I also enjoy the way that people toss around rarified concepts sich as quantum mechnics like that actully suggests we comprehend what is occuring. Drawing a graph or writing an equation is not comprehesion, it is only pallid description.

gpws

I agree. Read:
"Intellectual Impostures" by Alan Sokal.
So much of what passes for philosophy is just half informed, agenda driven verbiage.

filtherton

How would you define philosophy, gpws?

CSflim

The exact opposite of this:

The words "philosophy" and "speaking out of one's arse" are not actually synonymous, despite what some people seem to believe. Or maybe Lacan is actually be incredibly profound here, and I "just don't get it"

Check out the side-splittingly funny Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity by Alan Sokal (one of the authors of Intellectual Impostures/Fashionable Nonsense) which was published in all seriousness by the highly pretentious "philosophical" journal Social Text, for a wonderful paradoy of this sort of nonsense, absolutely full of completely genuine quotes from various "philosophers".

__________________

filtherton

I think i read something about Mr. Sokai and social text. He tricked them into publishing an article that basically made them all look like jackasses. Nice.

asaris

I'll give it a shot. Philosophy is logical thought regarding, broadly, the good (ethics) the true (metaphysics and epistemology) and the beautiful (aesthetics) in the tradition of Plato and Aristotle.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche