Philosophical Influences

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by GonzoB., Apr 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I'm always looking for new points of view, so I thought I'd ask:

    What are your philosophical influences, and which philosophers works have most shaped your moral compass and world view?

    Go in to as much detail as you like.
  2. Murakami, and then mostly personal experiences.

  3. Aristotle is definitely one of them. He was a deep thinker who questioned everything, and he made many contributions to the sciences we know and love today. (Lots of which isn't relevant anymore, but still cool stuff.) He's contributed to a lot of awesome things, really. I don't wanna go into too much detail because I'm lazy. There's Google and such for anyone who wants to learn more about the guy.

    I'm mainly influenced by my own life experiences, otherwise. Nothing has educated me quite as much as those have.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I'd have to re-read my favorites to get a further understanding, but I really like Hume's general epistemological approach, that beliefs ought to correspond with the evidence, and his skeptical method overall. The way he explains the problem of induction is also very well done. (Can a person be certain about matters of fact based on events that happened prior? / ex. People avoid mouse traps even if they aren't epistemologically certain the mouse trap would spring), as well as addressing the passions that interfere with this kind of reasoning.

    EDIT:// Not so much an ethics man. Dostoevsky is a fascinating writer and tends towards the absurd, which is why I like him. To him, based on my reading, is that it's not about why men act, but how men act, despite it not being the most logical course of action. ex. Ruining a gathering despite the fact that you can leave at any time.

    Another fascinating read is Marquis de Sade. I don't take his views fully, but it's sobering to read from a point of view that morality is perhaps simply "an idle fancy"
    • Thank Thank x 1
  5. I will pass by some of the more famous individualist philosophers for a collectivist one: Erich Fromm. I find his material extremely interesting, even if I don't strictly agree with all of it. Look up his comments about love, it's fascinating. To him, love is something that is a learned behaviour. Immature love is selfish, mature love is selfless. He also tends to take strong stances against righteousness and the ego, and though he respects Freud, he openly criticizes his work as being a shallow representation of humanity as a duality rather than shades of grey.

    Fromm is of the finest the socialist theory community ever came up with. I strongly recommend reading him and Confucious for viewpoints very different from what you will get in a standard philosophy course. If you want something interesting from a Libertarian angle, Ayn Rand's objectivist theories are as relevant as ever, infamous though they may be. There's also Hobbes and Nietzsche, though they're far more famous...

    ... I'm getting carried away here. I should probably stop. :ferret:
  6. Carried away? Not at all; this is exactly the response I was looking for when I opened this thread.

    I'm not sure if I've even heard of Fromm before, but boy am I glad you brought him up. I'm big on classical liberal philosophy, so that's a great counterpoint to it.

    Believe it or not, I've never actually read Rand's work, though I have some understanding of it through the work and lectures of others.

    I had a Confucious book back in high school that I took with me everywhere and read in my spare time. It's got a lot of very, very interesting sentiment that it miles away from an individualist mindset. I'll have to pick it back up.
  7. Edmund Burke is bae
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Aristotle, Socrates and Plato are always good places to start.

    Though personally? If I'm going to go by a past incident with Philosophy involving Bill Nye rejecting it.
    A lot of people had rushed to argue Bill Nye and defend Philosophy, and in that defence one of the things stated was "One thing so painful about defending Philosophy to Scientists is that they're so good at it".
    This basically put's most scientists on the table as well basically, so by that reasoning...

    My main suggestions would be Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan. Both of them have rather amazing ways to look into life, and be able to both be a big supporter of Science and still find a lot of meaning in life.
    Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens might also be good additions, it depends on how much you're willing to criticize religion though.
    #8 Gwazi Magnum, Apr 13, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Let me introduce you to one of the most fascinating ideas about love, then. (And a couple other bonus ones. Because why not?)

    “Love is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision.”
    Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

    “Immature love says: 'I love you because I need you.' Mature love says 'I need you because I love you.”
    Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

    “Love isn't something natural. Rather it requires discipline, concentration, patience, faith, and the overcoming of narcissism. It isn't a feeling, it is a practice.”
    Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

    “The main condition for the achievement of love is the overcoming of one's narcissism. The narcissistic orientation is one in which one experiences as real only that which exists within oneself, while the phenomena in the outside world have no reality in themselves, but are experienced only from the viewpoint of their being useful or dangerous to one. The opposite pole to narcissism is objectivity; it is the faculty to see other people and things as they are, objectively, and to be able to separate this objective picture from a picture which is formed by one's desires and fears.”
    Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

    “Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties.”
    Erich Fromm

    “One cannot be deeply responsive to the world without being saddened very often.”
    Erich Fromm

    “The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers. ”
    Erich Fromm

    Did I mention he's smart? Because he's really, incredibly smart, and views the world in a menagerie of greys rather than absolutes wherever he can.​
    • Love Love x 2
    • Thank Thank x 1
  10. I kind of like Rousseau, I wanna believe everyone has some natural inclination towards being good. But mostly this is an excuse to post this picture since I will never find a better time or place to post it.

    • Love Love x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Bucket of Rainbows Bucket of Rainbows x 1
  11. Aquinas
    Dennis Prager
    Ayn Rand
    CS. Lewis
    Francis Collins

    All combine like a giant mecha to form the epic philosophy that I have yet to name.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Shout out to David Hume since he's a based fellow Scot and pretty fascinating philosopher (fucking Missing Shade Of Blue tho), but if I had to pick a philosopher and a form of philosophy that really does it for me it'd be Albert Camus and the Absurdists.

    The world's fucking weird, there is no inherent meaning to it, shit has a habit of happening and guess what?

    That's fine.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  13. Gilles Deleuze. Often considered an anti-philospopher, because his writings are more active and motivated ... much like the content he purports. His writings describe the relationship of elements (societal, cultural, conceptual, literary) and the tendency of those elements to seek conformance. He celebrates the inherent change and movement —a restlessness— in all things. Back in Grad School, my Studio Critic (George Descombes) and I would chat about these ideas for hours. He venerated Deleuze, citing how he saw Amsterdam being defined (architecturally) by how the intricate canal system "flows" through the remnants of land. So, perpetual change and the way things strive to become something other than their current state is a mantra that guides me.

    Also, not a philosopher, per se, but Roland Barthes (Mythologies, in particular) was really illuminating to me. His thinking disassociates what we see (images that surround and influence us) from the acculturated meanings that are ascribed to those images ... sort of like disentangling what makes propaganda and the (subliminal) advertising tick.

    Thanks for posting the thread!
    • Like Like x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.