Have you read these philosophers?

[PoliSciProf]

OK, I like the new philosophy forum and it was obviously cobbled together from posts in other forums to get it started so I am not surprised to see a lot of Aquinas, Augustine, etc. I am curious, have the posters in this forum studied some of the big names in the last two hundred years? Is this forum going to discuss the philosophies of these thinkers? I just picked some of the obvious influentials since the poll process has limits. Let’s see what happens.

 

[Stratiotes]

Or - choke - Protestant philosophers?

Seriously though - I was once a serious fan of Cornelius Van Til, an Orthodox Presbyterian. I still think a lot of it as a matter of fact. Of course, his thinking kindof backfired on me and made me look at my own presuppositions as a protestant - which led to my inevitable conversion (see my October 4th blog entry for the reasons).

They say God does have a sense of humor.

 

[tdgesq]

Or - choke - Protestant philosophers?

Seriously though - I was once a serious fan of Cornelius Van Til, an Orthodox Presbyterian. I still think a lot of it as a matter of fact. Of course, his thinking kindof backfired on me and made me look at my own presuppositions as a protestant - which led to my inevitable conversion (see my October 4th blog entry for the reasons).

They say God does have a sense of humor.

I agree with you that Van Til has given some useful tools to Christian apologists, like the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Unfortunately his presuppositional philosophy ultimately leads to fideism, as pointed out by R.C. Sproul.

To answer the O.P., I’ve read some from most of the philosophers presented except Gadamer, Rawls, and Rorty. I can’t recollect their names anyway. I haven’t studied any of them in depth though. I can say that Heidegger and Hegel are two of the most difficult for me to understand. Most of what I know about Heidegger comes from Karl Rahner.

 

[a_priori]

Or - choke - Protestant philosophers?

Seriously though - I was once a serious fan of Cornelius Van Til, an Orthodox Presbyterian. I still think a lot of it as a matter of fact. Of course, his thinking kindof backfired on me and made me look at my own presuppositions as a protestant - which led to my inevitable conversion (see my October 4th blog entry for the reasons).

They say God does have a sense of humor.

Many years ago as a young protestant I read Francis Schaeffer. His writings changed my life and, I believe, started me on the road to Catholicism.

The people mentioned by the OP have some interesting things to say but I suppose I’m intellectually lazy and prefer to read the commentaries on them instead. I have tried to read some of them but, for me, they end up like water running into the desert and drying up.

Reading about things like Quantum Mechanics or the Golden Ratio seem to inspire me more philosophically than many of these people listed.

They are interesting but I prefer my recent philosophers in pre-digested form.

(You can probably tell from my name that Descartes is high on my list.)

 

[Newbie2]

I read most of them but I Kant understand what their point.

 

[Stratiotes]

I agree with you that Van Til has given some useful tools to Christian apologists, like the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Unfortunately his presuppositional philosophy ultimately leads to fideism, as pointed out by R.C. Sproul.

I think of RC Sproul as something of a spiritual father and have a great affection for him. However, I did and still think that that RC misunderstood and often misrepresented presuppositionalism.

By the way - I do appreciate some of the philosophers listed here as well. I have also enjoyed Keirkagaard very much.

 

[PoliSciProf]

I am just curious if this forum will be mostly about Catholic philosophers which is fine with me. They are probably my weakest area but I am wondering if anyone will start threads on the one’s on my poll, or on Kierkegaard or Plato or Aristotle or Averoes, etc.

 

[jimmy85]

It amaze me that many people here studied the philosophy of Nietzsche.

 

[john_doran]

I am curious, have the posters in this forum studied some of the big names in the last two hundred years? Is this forum going to discuss the philosophies of these thinkers? I just picked some of the obvious influentials since the poll process has limits. Let’s see what happens.

i’ve read all of those guys on your list, but then my graduate and undergraduate degrees are in philosophy; i think it’s less likely that casual readers on a forum like this will have encountered many of them in a serious way - most of them can be pretty inaccessible, you know?

and i guess they’ll be discussed if someone on a thread believes something they said to be germane to the topic…that having been said, i can imagine kant coming up, but hegel or habermas or gadamer? not likely.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Nope

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Why the focus on continental thinkers? When serious people think, they do it analytically.

 

[mommyof4]

Wow, I’m feeling stupid. I haven’t even heard of a lot of these guys. And I was a History and English major in college, too.

 

[cpayne]

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, but I had a different question pop into my mind: How many of these guys will still be discussed seriously a century from now? I’m betting Kant, Nietzsche, and maybe Wittgenstein; that’s all. Whaddya think?

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, but I had a different question pop into my mind: How many of these guys will still be discussed seriously a century from now? I’m betting Kant, Nietzsche, and maybe Wittgenstein; that’s all. Whaddya think?

The big H-s will still be there: Hegel, Heidigger, and Husserl.

I read them- philosophers- to keep up with my husband’s profession, so I know what he means when he says something. We have a library of over 1,000 philosophy books and classics.

 

[john_doran]

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, but I had a different question pop into my mind: How many of these guys will still be discussed seriously a century from now? I’m betting Kant, Nietzsche, and maybe Wittgenstein; that’s all. Whaddya think?

i’d include rawls in that group, as well - merits aside, his brand and expression of political liberalism galvanized western political philosophy in a way that hasn’t been seen for a long, long, long time.

 

[Greg27]

I’ve studied quite a bit of Descartes, Hume, Kant and Husserl in the past year, and I’ve also had to study Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Heidegger in the past.

 

[happyseppy]

Um, I have only *heard of *Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Heidegger.

I may have read some Nietzsche and Kant along the way, but by no means have studied them.

Poly Sci, for an interested beginner, what /who would be a good place to start?

Peace,

Kelly

 

[john_doran]

Poly Sci, for an interested beginner, what /who would be a good place to start?

well, i don’t know about political science, but as far as political philosophy is concerned, i guess it depends on what kind you’re interested in…

john rawls is a good start for a statement of contemporary political liberalism.

michael sandel is a smart, compelling critic of rawls’ thought.

joseph raz articulates an interesting variety of liberal thought.

robert p. george (a “conservative” catholic) has written some excellent books on the politics of the “new” natural law theory.

robert nozick adopts an interesting(ly radical) defense of a libertarian nightwatchman state.

and the list goes on…

hope that helps.