Thank you at least for mentioning Heidegger … and that he may have put forward a profound question … I just started a new thread about Heidegger before I noticed your posting … I have to ask … why is Heidegger pathetic …
I consider Singer more of a troll than a philosopher.Most overated and most overemphasised?
One spectacular candidate…
Peter Singer.
Disgrace to the profession.
I have a book by Kung which is on my queue to read, but I’ve heard a lot of backlash against the man that I know is most likely warranted. Is there a reason I should avoid his work?
Admittedly, I haven’t read anything he (Kung) wrote in its entirty, but I have read excerpts. From what I read, he’s a Modernist and relativist to the core, maintaining that truth changes as man evolves, and that all religions and beliefs are good. Translated, that specifically truth about God changes. When the Church declares something infallibly, some years later it can be overturned as no longer correct. And also, that while the Catholic Church may be the most pleasing to God, so are other religions, to a greater or lesser degree. I wouldn’t say don’t read what he wrote, but be on your guard.
I Agree With Pascal Being Underrated, But Ptolemy?
Actually, The Real Forerrunners Of Oprah And Tolle Are The New Age, New Thought, And Theosophy-Inspired Fraternities And Philosophies That Have Sprung up Over Past Two Centuries Or So.
Not To Mention An Apologist For the Murder Of Mentally Retarded Children.Most overated and most overemphasised?
One spectacular candidate…
Peter Singer.
Disgrace to the profession.
Aquinas Is Definitely Underrated. Insofar As Some Folks Tend To Look At Him ONLY As A Religious Philosopher. Which Is Too Bad. He Is One Of The Great Users Of Logic And Systematic Philosophy Ever.
I agree too. It’s sad how often he is overlooked in political philosophy also, and I strongly dislike people calling him “unscientific” and such and using that to discredit him.Aquinas Is Definitely Underrated. Insofar As Some Folks Tend To Look At Him ONLY As A Religious Philosopher. Which Is Too Bad. He Is One Of The Great Users Of Logic And Systematic Philosophy Ever.
Those who call him unscientific have obviously not read Aquinas in any seriousness. This is usually the root of critiques of Aquinas. People repeat what they have heard from other people who likewise heard the same critiques from others, and on and on, until you find the person who gave birth to the critique. Then, lo and behold, it usually turns out that that person also didn’t read Aquinas but learned from manuals and commentaries and/or he couldn’t understand Thomas. And now, because of people like Derrida the opposite is also true. Thomas is just to clear and makes too much sense, therefore he must be wrong. Thomists just can win these days.I agree too. It’s sad how often he is overlooked in political philosophy also, and I strongly dislike people calling him “unscientific” and such and using that to discredit him.
And don’t forget he says sex with animals is ok, provided the animal isn’t harmed.Not To Mention An Apologist For the Murder Of Mentally Retarded Children.
That, too.And don’t forget he says sex with animals is ok, provided the animal isn’t harmed.
Ironically, Aquinas’s Philosophical Model for the Summa Theologia was Aristotle, who was considered the Greatest Scientist Ever for Millenia.I agree too. It’s sad how often he is overlooked in political philosophy also, and I strongly dislike people calling him “unscientific” and such and using that to discredit him.
:thumbsup:Aristotle, in many ways, was probably the greatest. Certainly the most influential. Then again, we should be mightily impressed with Plato too.Ironically, Aquinas’s Philosophical Model for the Summa Theologia was Aristotle, who was considered the Greatest Scientist Ever for Millenia.
I never saw Plato as a Straight-Out Scientist----more of a Metaphysical Philosopher. Certainly He Is not in the Mold of the Pre-Socratics, who were more Natural Scientists/Philosophers who were Concerned with the Universe and Its Meaning and Workings.
You are right, of course. For some reason I never even had the word “science” in my head when I posted. I was probably getting too worked up over Singer. I get riled whenever that man’s name is even mentioned!I never saw Plato as a Straight-Out Scientist----more of a Metaphysical Philosopher. Certainly He Is not in the Mold of the Pre-Socratics, who were more Natural Scientists/Philosophers who were Concerned with the Universe and Its Meaning and Workings.
It was Socrates who Flipped the Whole thing around and Declared that Philosophy would henceforth Concern itself with Man almost Exclusively.
Plato merely contimued in the Mold of His Master and added Political, Metaphysical Concerns to the Study Of Man.
Aristotle was More of a True scientist because he concerned Himself with the Physical Workings Of Things and How They related To man in a Scientific, Political, Ethical way.
Although I DO agree with you that Plato is the Greatest Philosopher Ever…
Not so much a Scientist, though.