Your Philosopher of Choice is ...

[Katt in Hat]

Back on Topic...Samuel Beckett - Foolosopher

"The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the $xxt the more I am grateful to him.
He’s not ef--ing me about, he’s not leading me up any garden path, he’s not slipping me a wink, he’s not flogging me a remedy or a path or a revelation or a basinful of breadcrumbs, he’s not selling me anything I don’t want to buy — he doesn't give a bollock whether I buy or not — he hasn't got his hand over his heart. Well, I’ll buy his goods, hook, line and sinker, because he leaves no stone unturned and no maggot lonely. He brings forth a body of beauty.
His work is beautiful."
-- Harold Pinter (Also a Nobel Laureate)

Other faves of mine are Lao Tzu & Lenny Bruce.

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

Hm, Isaac Breuer and William of Occam come to mind. As a cynic adolescent Schopenhauer.

But there's not one I completely concur with.

 

[Ken]

Spinoza is my philosopher of choice. Nearly all other philosophers I have read you quickly or upon study find flaws in their arguments, Spinoza is very very difficult to.

Ken

 

[Samsa]

I am surprised not only at how many people have chosen religious figures, but also that none of them has mentioned St. Paul or Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes goes right after The Apology on my list. So, where are all the lovers of St. Paul?

St. Paul was a theologian.

 

[Samsa]

Spinoza is my philosopher of choice. Nearly all other philosophers I have read you quickly or upon study find flaws in their arguments, Spinoza is very very difficult to.

Ken

I'm only a dabbler in philosophy, but haven't scores of people found fault with Spinoza's metaphysics? (Which, as I'm reading an overview of his teaching, seems to be based largely on Descartes' erroneous cogito ergo sum.) I also seem to remember that his thought is also a kind of crypto-atheism (i.e. pantheism).

(I could be dead wrong about this last part - I'm trying to remember what little Spinoza I had as an undergrad, without much success I might add.)

 

[Lauren]

Hmmm.... Descartes, I guess.

If they can be considered philospohers next are C.S. Lewis and Dallas Willard.

I would vote Jesus as well, but I won't because of the reason mentioned

 

[pablocham]

St. Paul was a theologian.

The distinction between philosopher and theologian is a very academic and very recent one. I would suggest you read I and II Corinthians and then tell me that Paul wasn't a philosopher. Half the people mentioned so far have been primarily theologians, but I see no problem with calling Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or Paul "philosophers." As you probably know, all the ancient pre-christian philosophers, from Thales and the other pre-Socratics to Plotinus seem to have been sufficiently interested in the nature of God to be called theologians. In fact, most of the pre-Socratics would more accurately be described as theologians than as philosophers.

Judging by other people's responses, it seems like, at least for the purposes of this thread, a philosopher is somebody who speaks persuasively on why we are here and what we should do here. I would be open to hearing other definitions for either term.

 

[deanglen]

The distinction between philosopher and theologian is a very academic and very recent one. I would suggest you read I and II Corinthians and then tell me that Paul wasn't a philosopher. Half the people mentioned so far have been primarily theologians, but I see no problem with calling Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or Paul "philosophers." As you probably know, all the ancient pre-christian philosophers, from Thales and the other pre-Socratics to Plotinus seem to have been sufficiently interested in the nature of God to be called theologians. In fact, most of the pre-Socratics would more accurately be described as theologians than as philosophers.

Judging by other people's responses, it seems like, at least for the purposes of this thread, a philosopher is somebody who speaks persuasively on why we are here and what we should do here. I would be open to hearing other definitions for either term.

Consider this link, it may prove helpful to all of us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology


dean

 

[Samsa]

The distinction between philosopher and theologian is a very academic and very recent one. I would suggest you read I and II Corinthians and then tell me that Paul wasn't a philosopher. Half the people mentioned so far have been primarily theologians, but I see no problem with calling Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or Paul "philosophers." As you probably know, all the ancient pre-christian philosophers, from Thales and the other pre-Socratics to Plotinus seem to have been sufficiently interested in the nature of God to be called theologians. In fact, most of the pre-Socratics would more accurately be described as theologians than as philosophers.

Judging by other people's responses, it seems like, at least for the purposes of this thread, a philosopher is somebody who speaks persuasively on why we are here and what we should do here. I would be open to hearing other definitions for either term.

Always glad to have a friendly theological / philosophical discussion!

My background, just to set things straight, is theology (my undergrad degree is in Catholic Theology). I mention this just because we Catholics might use different definitions than you do; I would hate to get knee deep in a debate with you and find we are simply arguing semantics...

Anyway, philosophy is concerned with truth (assuming one believes in such a thing, that is), and arriving at statements of truth through the unaided use of human reason. Philosophers, when writing stricly philosophical works, don't invoke, for instance, the Bible.

Theology, on the other hand, is pure wisdom - that is, it pairs philosophy (or human reason) with divine revelation (which is, by definition, not something that one could reach by use of unaided human reason).

You mention that, historically, philosophers have been concerned with the existence of God. This is not Theology proper, but a branch known as Natural Theology (which is a deceptive name). Thus, although he is a theologian, Thomas Aquinas is also a philosopher, as he proved (using human reason alone, not revelation) that God exists.

By way of example, those sections in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica that deal with the existence of God and its proof through human reason are philosophy. Those that deal with the seven sacraments, grace, etc, are theology - Aquinas uses human reason to explicate and systematize that which has been handed down by way of divine revelation (the Bible and Sacred Tradition).

 

[koopkooper]

do George Burns or Bob Hope count????

 

[Marc Chevalier]

If you have to ask whether they count, then they don't.




.

 

[pablocham]

Samsa,
I just don't think that it is possible to meaningfully distinguish between philosophers or philosophy and theologians or theology by looking at the content of a work. Your definition illustrates this point rather well, as it makes Socrates into a theologian. Remember that he claimed, at least as Plato has it, to be divinely inspired to ask his annoying questions by a certain 'daemon' or spirit that instructed him on what to do and what not to do. That is to say, he paired his reason with divine revelation. So, was he a theologian or a philosopher?

I simply can't find an organic distinction between these two categories that isn't either over-inclusive or under-inclusive.

 

[Lincsong]

Machiavelli

 

[Katt in Hat]

Doh!

Machiavelli

Never had the slightest doubt about that...

 

[Samsa]

Samsa,
I just don't think that it is possible to meaningfully distinguish between philosophers or philosophy and theologians or theology by looking at the content of a work. Your definition illustrates this point rather well, as it makes Socrates into a theologian. Remember that he claimed, at least as Plato has it, to be divinely inspired to ask his annoying questions by a certain 'daemon' or spirit that instructed him on what to do and what not to do. That is to say, he paired his reason with divine revelation. So, was he a theologian or a philosopher?

I simply can't find an organic distinction between these two categories that isn't either over-inclusive or under-inclusive.

Earlier, I admitted to being a dabbler in philosophy. I've had four classes in philosophy, that's it - I can hardly call myself an expert, and am certainly more prone to being wrong than others here who have studied more. I am, shamefully, not familiar with much Plato, or any Socrates, so can't really address the issue you raise re: Socrates - I would have to spend time studying it, time I don't have.

As far as distinguishing between philosophy and theology in general, I have to believe (without knowing exactly how to frame it) that there is a real difference - otherwise there would not be two seperate words, "philosophy" and "theology," not to mention two very different degrees you can obtain. Though, as with all fields, they do overlap to an extent, and no perfectly clear demarcation can be found. It's certainly an interesting topic, though, and one I'd like to read more about...

 

[carebear]

Hmmm...does Charles Darwin count? Perhaps the more modern version Jared Diamond of Guns, Germs, and Steel. It changed my philosophy, anyway. Mark Twian had quite a few interesting observations on life and humanity as well.

I like rairerrescue's Teddy Roosevelt too...and maybe add John Muir to that.

Good picks.

Aquinas and Epictetus are probably my earliest favorites. Being such a thinking man's tough guy and all.

As far as "Guns, Germs and Steel" goes I would recommend you read Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage and Culture". It is primarily a military history but addresses many of the same ideas as Diamond and destroys some of his arguments on the nature of societies quite convincingly. Diamond, in his quest to not offend, overlooks some real qualitative differences in different societies' abilities to provide for their members and maintain their own existence. Differences that can be ascribed to culture and philosophy, irrespective of resource availability.

One part of the definition of a working civilization is sustainability and maximizing the use of available resources. Many of the cultures Diamond essentially excuses as "behind from the start" in reality made some dramatically poor early choices in using (or not using) their available resources and handicapped themselves in the struggle to survive.

I recommend in fact, that everyone read their Hanson. Especially as it applies to the current clash of cultures.

 

[John in Covina]

Almost hits the nail on the Head!

AYN RAND 1905-1982 -dixon cannon

Rand gets close but has no heart for compassion or charity. Still it is close to a best outlook for the rewards and punishment of capitalism.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Oh, Ok then...

The distinction between philosopher and theologian is a very academic and very recent one. I would suggest you read I and II Corinthians and then tell me that Paul wasn't a philosopher. Half the people mentioned so far have been primarily theologians, but I see no problem with calling Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or Paul "philosophers." As you probably know, all the ancient pre-christian philosophers, from Thales and the other pre-Socratics to Plotinus seem to have been sufficiently interested in the nature of God to be called theologians. In fact, most of the pre-Socratics would more accurately be described as theologians than as philosophers.

Judging by other people's responses, it seems like, at least for the purposes of this thread, a philosopher is somebody who speaks persuasively on why we are here and what we should do here. I would be open to hearing other definitions for either term.

I'll add Ernest Holmes author of Science of Mind and Founder of the Church of Religious Science.

-dixon cannon

 

[FedoraGent]

Very simple...

Plato...

 

[BellyTank]

Yamamoto Tsunetomo-

-of Hagakure and Ghost Dog fame.

B
T