Who Are Your Favorite Philosophers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Feanaro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In no particular order,

St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Augustine
(those two are almost no-brainers for a Catholic!)
Epictetus
John Stuart Mill

About three years ago, when I took my Intro to Philosophy class on my way to a degree in Mathematics (which I will get this December), I found that Epictetus and Mill had a profound effect on my own philosophy.

We read the Enchiridion of Epictetus and “On Liberty” from Mill.

MT
 
  1. St. Thomas Aquinas
  2. St. Anslem of Canteberry
  3. St. Augustine
  4. Socrates
  5. Plato
  6. Aristotle
  7. Kierkegard
  8. C.S. Lewis
  9. G.K. Chesterton
  10. Mortimer J. Adler
  11. Peter Kreeft
 
Here’s my current top-ten:
  1. St. Thomas Aquinas
  2. Aristotle
  3. Plato
  4. Socrates
  5. St. Augustine of Hippo
  6. St. Anselm of Canterbury
  7. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
  8. Josef Pieper
  9. Etienne Gilson
  10. Jacques Maritain
 
In a particular order:

1.)St. Anselm
2.)Plato
3.)St. Augustine
4.)Descartes

I think St. Anselm is highly underrated!
 
I think Descartes is highly overrated. 😉

What is it you like about Descartes’ philosophy, specifically?
 
I haven’t read any thing other than his (Descartes’s)Meditations on First Philosophy. His basic establishment of the primacy of reason is what I like about that work. His ontological argument is flawed (unlike St. Anselm’s), but the use of the connection is brilliant. Also the innate idea of God (that we could have it no other way) I think is first introduced by him as well. It is more of what I’ve got out of him than anything else.
 
My favorite philosophers (greatness):
  1. St. Thomas Aquinas
  2. St. Augustine
  3. Aristotle
  4. Plato
  5. Socrates
My favorite philosophers (human likableness), in no particular order:
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Augustine
Edith Stein
Cornelio Fabro
St. Thomas More
 
In birth order…

Zoroaster
Plato
St. Paul
Descartes
Francis Schaeffer

(St. Augustine- His Neoplatonism is nothing short of intoxicating to me but, as the father of an unbaptised baby girl who died after 2 hours of life, he breaks my heart in two.)
 
  1. J.C.
  2. Peter Kreeft
  3. C.S. Lewis
  4. Jay Budziszewski
  5. W.L. Craig
  6. J.P. Moreland
    …
these are the modern ones… of course the eminent ones are perhaps Augustine, Aquinas and Socrates

😉
 
Feanaro said:
Socrates4Jesus:

Have you ever read any of Peter Kreeft’s material? He’s the one who primarily got me interested in Philosophy as well as Socrates.
Click to expand...
We’re on the same boat then!

I’ve started once listening to his mp3s and now I’ve over 30 of his books at home! He’s truly a modern suberbly wise saint-philospher. I would go as far as dub him today’s Aquinas or Augustine…and if not…certainly Socrates! 👍
 
Kreeft is a good professor, but -]most /-] those of his books I’ve read aren’t worth reading. His logic one is the only one I recommend, but that one is harder to find.

His others tend not to cite his sources and argue straw mans…
 
Anyway, my top five:
  1. Gabriel Marcel
  2. Soren Kierkegaard
  3. Plato
  4. Sartre
  5. Heraclitus
 
ABostonCatholic said:
Kreeft is a good professor, but -]most /-] those of his books I’ve read aren’t worth reading. His logic one is the only one I recommend, but that one is harder to find.

His others tend not to cite his sources and argue straw mans…
Click to expand...
I’m quite surprised at that (thought I most surely appreciate what you said).

Could you name what books from him that you read disappointed you the most?

PS: are you a Catholic?
 
My favorite, or at least most used at current, philosopher would have to be Zeno of Elea. The guy was pretty smart, I admit, and he is credited as being the first to implement the form of argument reductio ad absurdum, or, proof by contradiction; also known as the epicheirema. Very easy to use, for my friends often say things like “There is no truth,” and so then I simply point out how there must be, since it contradicts. 👍

Also, his contradictions of motion are a lot of fun to bring up with people, though it usually gets me a couple :confused: or :rolleyes: . If you don’t know them, I’d suggest checking them out, just for the mere absurdity of non-movement.

I’d also have to throw in St. Thomas Aquinas, considering I unwittingly made use of his proofs in a paper last year in class, and the teacher, who happened to be Catholic, was skeptical as to me claiming I’d come up with the ideas on my own. When he showed me Aquinas, there was a definite :eek: moment. It’s nice to unwittingly be just like a theologian/philosopher. (Though I most certainly have a long way to go before I understand half of what he says)
 
zemi said:
I’m quite surprised at that (thought I most surely appreciate what you said).

Could you name what books from him that you read disappointed you the most?

PS: are you a Catholic?
Click to expand...
Angels (and demons): Informative, but does not cite sources
**Unaborted Socrates: **Arguments are sound, but, as with all his Socrates books, I can’t imagine the real Socrates every saying any of it
Socrates Meets Jesus: Arguments are weak at times, the epilogue makes me wonder if he takes any of his books seriously (I know he does. That’s just his weird sense of humor)
Between Heaven and Hell: Basically a rehash of SMJ
Summa of the Summa: Nothing wrong with it really if you want an intro to the Summa. But sometimes he cut out parts he should have left in, and vice-versa.
**Socratic Logic: **A good logic book that does not compare to anything else that’s on the market
Socrates Meets Sartre: By far his worst. His understanding of Sartre is limited. The book is a refutation of the book “Existentialism and Human Emotions” which is not actually a book by Sartre. It is a compilation of his famous essay “Existentialism is a Humanism” and excerpts from “Being and Nothingness.” Kreeft’s knowledge of Sartre is limited mostly to that little book. He has not read Being and Nothingness.

That’s all I can think of. I know that some of his books, though I don’t know the titles, are rip-offs of C.S. Lewis that he made at the request of his publisher. They wanted him to rewrite some of the books for a newer audience. Not that that is bad in and of itself, though. But I’d rather just read C. S. Lewis 🙂

As I said, I think he’s a good professor, but his books aren’t ones that I’m going to keep on my bookshelves and study for the rest of my life.

Yes, I am Catholic.
 
brycelaliberte said:
Though I most certainly have a long way to go before I understand half of what he says)
Click to expand...
I remember in high school having Cartesian doubt, though I concluded “My life is an illusion and I do not exist” rather than “Cogito, sum”

:rolleyes:
 
ABostonCatholic said:
Angels (and demons): Informative, but does not cite sources
**Unaborted Socrates: **Arguments are sound, but, as with all his Socrates books, I can’t imagine the real Socrates every saying any of it
Socrates Meets Jesus: Arguments are weak at times, the epilogue makes me wonder if he takes any of his books seriously (I know he does. That’s just his weird sense of humor)
Between Heaven and Hell: Basically a rehash of SMJ
Summa of the Summa: Nothing wrong with it really if you want an intro to the Summa. But sometimes he cut out parts he should have left in, and vice-versa.
**Socratic Logic: **A good logic book that does not compare to anything else that’s on the market
Socrates Meets Sartre: By far his worst. His understanding of Sartre is limited. The book is a refutation of the book “Existentialism and Human Emotions” which is not actually a book by Sartre. It is a compilation of his famous essay “Existentialism is a Humanism” and excerpts from “Being and Nothingness.” Kreeft’s knowledge of Sartre is limited mostly to that little book. He has not read Being and Nothingness.

That’s all I can think of. I know that some of his books, though I don’t know the titles, are rip-offs of C.S. Lewis that he made at the request of his publisher. They wanted him to rewrite some of the books for a newer audience. Not that that is bad in and of itself, though. But I’d rather just read C. S. Lewis 🙂

As I said, I think he’s a good professor, but his books aren’t ones that I’m going to keep on my bookshelves and study for the rest of my life.

Yes, I am Catholic.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I’ll reply maybe later 🙂

I’m off to sleep… Goodnight my friend!
 
In No particular order:

St. Augustine
St. Justin Martyr (Important in developing catholicism as a philosophic religion)
Nicolo Machiavelli
Socrates
Jean Jacques Rousseau
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top