The Greatest Thinker Of The Millennium

[sporkadelic]

.... Yes, that was my exact thought.

Now a question:

Has anyone here actually read  Das Kapital ?  I mean a thorough study of all 3 volumes from cover to cover, along with all its complex equations ?   

I too have a question:

Why, contrary to normal practice with books translated into English, do we call this one by its German title?  Shouldn't it be simply Capital?  The only other book I can think of that's treated in a similar fashion is the one by Hitler.

[Florestan]

Schopenhauer can be even more verbose than Hegel(!)

Even when verbose, Schopenhauer is certainly more clear and his prose is more stylisih. 

[Florestan]

I have to say that I've never understood why people admire capitalism  so  dogmatically...

During the Communist regime, the following jokes were widely circulated in Romania:

A little boy asks his father, after watching an anti-capitalist, anti-Western propaganda movie:
- Daddy, if their life is that bad and our life is that good, then why their life is that good and our life is that bad?


Capitalism means exploitation of man by his fellow man. Communism means exactly the other way around.


Question: Was Communism invented by scientists or philosophers?
Answer: Philosophers.
Question: How do you know?
Answer: Had it been invented by scientists it would have been tested first on rats.


A Russian and an American drink together in a bar. The American says:
-Hey, Ivan, America is a free country: look, if I go in front of the White House and cry "Down with Nixon!" nothing's going to happen to me.
The Russian retorts:
-Hey, Johnny, USSR's as free a country as USA: if I go to the Red Square and cry "Down with Nixon!" nothing's going to happen to me, either.

[drogulus]

     I don't know why injustice is attributed to capitalism. It isn't a system, it's a name for economic practice in countries where people buy and sell with relative freedom. Therefore it's permissive of all sorts of injustices and partial remedies for them. Capitalism doesn't impose a particular redistributive scheme. Just look at Germany or France compared to the U.S. Which version of capitalist injustice appeals to your sense of outrage?

     Every capitalist system has some socialism mixed in, and I think that's a good thing. How much is an open question, with national traditions playing some role. I favor help for the poor and government action to remedy the worst problems, because the case that government is essentially subtractive in its influence is lousy. The case that government can build what the future requires and private enterprise can't accomplish on its own is solid. The history of the U.S. testifies to that decisively for me. Trying to punch holes in that case by reciting cases of government failure is like complaining about the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. 

[Haffner]

There's a guy at Ford who invented in intermittent windshield wiper mechanism.  He did more for humanity than those three combined.

Please, enlighten all of us here as to exactly how this did more for humanity. I expect you'll be forthcoming with a detailed condemnation of those thinkers. I'm excited to read your redaction. You must have quite a backround in these matters, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a strident assertion. 

Let's start with the invention of Existentialism, for which Hegel is directly responsible. Exactly how much less would be humanity without the theory of Existentialism, as opposed to the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism? I'm chomping at the bit on this one. Stun me with your knowledge of philosophy and psychology.

[aquablob]

Please, enlighten all of us here as to exactly how this did more for humanity. I expect you'll be forthcoming with a detailed condemnation of those thinkers. I'm excited to read your redaction. You must have quite a backround in these matters, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a strident assertion. 

Let's start with the invention of Existentialism, for which Hegel is directly responsible. Exactly how much less would be humanity without the theory of Existentialism, as opposed to the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism? I'm chomping at the bit on this one. Stun me with your knowledge of philosophy and psychology.

Oh, Andy...

[Haffner]

Oh, Andy...

I actually feel a little sorry for seeming so smug. It's just that his statement about those thinkers completely dismisses some of the most profound ideas the Occident has had since the Greeks. I feel sorrier for anyone whom would make such a statement and not be prepared to back it up. It's horribly unfair to people whom could actually get something out of further investigation of those thinkers.

Kirkegaard, Hegel, Jung...all those men mentioned added positive things to my life when I studied their works. And if it worked for me (I'm far from any kind of great or even good thinker), then the same can happen to anyone else so inclined to approach these thinkers with a completely open mind.

[Florestan]

government can build what the future requires

Government can build nothing without people's intelligence, talents and money. Nor can it know the future, unless it's bent on creating and modelling it --- and that has a name: utopia.

[Florestan]

Andy, I'm completely in agreement with you. The forum has been flooded as of late with grandiose claims and statements for which no evidence whatsoever has been offered (because there isn't any).

[Haffner]

Andy, I'm completely in agreement with you. The forum has been flooded as of late with grandiose claims and statements for which no evidence whatsoever has been offered (because there isn't any).

I wonder if people make such uninformed, horrible statements like his because it gives them a sense of power. If so, I suggest they instead invest more energy into their education.

[Renfield]

I wonder if people make such uninformed, horrible statements like his because it gives them a sense of power. If so, I suggest they instead invest more energy into their education.

Amen, for any people making any uninformed statements anywhere.

On the other hand, speaking of meta-ethics, value-judgements are hard to prove objective. (Assuming they can be proven objective at all.) If one considers Existentialism "philosophical sauce", like many people certainly do, I'm sure, say, Kierkegaard would leave them cold.

Or consider how a discussion on Existentialism cannot possibly exclude Martin Heidegger, and I assume you know to what easy retort the mention of Heidegger can lead, similar to the mention of Karajan. Live and let live: even education must be a choice.



[If it isn't obvious, I agree that Existentialism is perhaps the most important thought (that is, idea) to have come out of the last millennium, even if I wouldn't locate it as decisively in a specific thinker as I'd want to, in order to call them "in-my-opinion-greatest".

Not to mention that - though a possibly controversial point - Kant could be argued to have begun the business of existentialist thought with his "kingdom of ends"; but let's set that aside for the context of the GMG Classical Music Forum, maybe. ]

[Haffner]

Amen, for any people making any uninformed statements anywhere.

On the other hand, speaking of meta-ethics, value-judgements are hard to prove objective. (Assuming they can be proven objective at all.) If one considers Existentialism "philosophical sauce", like many people certainly do, I'm sure, say, Kierkegaard would leave them cold.

Or consider how a discussion on Existentialism cannot possibly exclude Martin Heidegger, and I assume you know to what easy retort the mention of Heidegger can lead, similar to the mention of Karajan. Live and let live: even education must be a choice.



[If it isn't obvious, I agree that Existentialism is perhaps the most important thought (that is, idea) to have come out of the last millennium, even if I wouldn't locate it as decisively in a specific thinker as I'd want to, in order to call them "in-my-opinion-greatest".

Not to mention that - though a possibly controversial point - Kant could be argued to have begun the business of existentialist thought with his "kingdom of ends"; but let's set that aside for the context of the GMG Classical Music Forum, maybe. ]

Yay! This man knows what he's talking about! (Great analogy in regard to Karajan/Heidegger). Heidegger's Being and Time is fascinating (also post-modernists like Derrida ad the French crew from that era).

[The new erato]

After this, I think we need a thread on the greatest Tinkerer of the Millennium.

[Bulldog]

There's a guy at Ford who invented in intermittent windshield wiper mechanism.  He did more for humanity than those three combined.

Good point, but I don't think the innovation has anything to do with humanity, but simply making life a little safer and more convenient.  However, there's much to be said for practical innovations impacting many more folks than the writings of philosophers.

[Haffner]

there's much to be said for practical innovations impacting many more folks than the writings of philosophers.

You said it!

[Homo Aestheticus]

There's a guy at Ford who invented in intermittent windshield wiper mechanism.  He did more for humanity than those three combined.

By the way, Lewis Wolpert, the great developmental biologist, once said the following in an interview:

"With the exception of David Hume I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that..."

****

Since I am not a scholar I really can't give an opinion..... Sort of on the fence with this issue.

[Haffner]

By the way, Lewis Wolpert, the great developmental biologist, once said the following in an interview:

"With the exception of David Hume I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that..."

****

Since I am not a scholar I really can't give an opinion..... Sort of on the fence with this issue.

To say that any major philosopher has absolutely nothing important to say has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. That is, I hope it was said out of ignorance, because otherwise it's creepy to think about what that kind of asinine, bigoted,close-minded assertion it would be otherwise.

[Renfield]

By the way, Lewis Wolpert, the great developmental biologist, once said the following in an interview:

"With the exception of David Hume I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that..."

****

Since I am not a scholar I really can't give an opinion..... Sort of on the fence with this issue.

I see the Economist firmly grounded in empiricism, the "hands-on" approach, and am not surprised! (Not to say Hume is not a worthy candidate.)

Hume is Mr Empricism, if you'll permit the "soundbite". A natural choice for a developmental biologist; not to mention an entire philosophical tradition. For some reason, people perceive philosophy as a discipline that dictates, when it's exactly the opposite, even down to how its own exponents relate to each other. If Hume says interesting and important things, so must the huge part of Western philosophy that follows from his mode of thinking (rather than his ideas in particular), if one assumes that good ideas more often come to someone thinking the right way.

End of rant.

[Haffner]

I think it's a matter of application. Even when a major philosopher is difficult, the student can at least learn, through study, how to discipline oneself mentally in order to more fully comprehend the thinker's works. This can be invaluable when applied to making day to day decisions.

This can also be applied to the various other arts as well. As long as one is able to both apply oneself to the subject material, and find how to apply the cognitive processes to everyday decision making, one wins regardless of how "practical"  in itself the subject matter may seem.

But let's face, most people don't like to think too much. To me, that's like not wanting to live too much. But that's just me.

[Renfield]

I think it's a matter of application. Even when a major philosopher is difficult, the student can at least learn, through study, how to discipline oneself mentally in order to more fully comprehend the thinker's works. This can be invaluable when applied to making day to day decisions.

This can also be applied to the various other arts as well. As long as one is able to both apply oneself to the subject material, and see how to apply cognitive processes to everyday decision making, one wins regardless of in itself "practical" the subject matter may be.

But let's face, most people don't like to think too much. To me, that's like not wanting to live too much. But that's just me.

I couldn't have put it better myself. But indeed, that is just (you and) me.