Epistemology/Metaphysics.

[Aleph-One]

I hope this will be a fun little exercise -- simply pick your favorite philosophers from the above list (trying to limit your choices to as few as possible), and explain why you agree with them. *Also, because some of the above also worked in several areas, I'm going to limit this particular poll to epistemology,metaphysics and related ideas. *So, for example, if you think that the objectivists had it right when it dealing with the nature of knowledge and the structure of the world, but found their morals and ethics to be too self-serving and axiomatic, you should still pick Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff since we aren't talking about morals and ethics at the moment.

You'll also notice that I've tried to limit the choices to recent philosophers. *Philsophy has become more sophisticated over the centuries and, besides, there isn't much use in talking about epistemology or metaphysics without also considering the nature of scientific inquiry (something that has only really been fully developed quite recently).

Also, there may be objections to the choices of philosophers on the list. *If you feel that two should be lumped together, let me know why, or if I've lumped two together which shouldn't be, or if you feel I've made any unfair omissions.

[Evalis]

.... >.>

Some of us are dumb.. and/or can't remember the name of last weeks cereal box that we purchased. Any chance you could alter the 'name' section to read the type of theory those authors were supporting?

(Nifty vote thingy by the way ^^)

[Jezebel]

I agree, I don't spend much time reading philosophy either. If you could summarize these philosopher's beliefs in a couple of sentences I could tell you what I agree with.

[radioactivez0r]

all my study was centered on the greeks and the 18th/19th century, and then i encountered hume and told him to fuck off. so i have no idea about any of those guys.

[Guido]

Ditto. I imagine there is probably a philosopher out there that I would agree with, but there are so many that do dumb things like 'prove' that motion can't exist, or that animals should have the same rights as humans. With that, I kind of wrote off the whole philosophy thing. I have no patience when it comes to reading other people's opinions when I find them blatantly wrong. Besides, I have 4 perfectly good walls to stare at.

[qwerty]

Slightly off topic:
Never read a philosophy book but I've been told I should add one or two to my todo list(because of the way I think).
Metaphysics is an extremely interesting area and I've been meaning to dive in, which is the best place to start?

[futureperfect5]

Could you give us a two line summary of each? I am curious ...

[shellbelle]

I highly disagree with one calling Rand and Peikoff philosophers, but that's the analytic philosopher in me screaming at you. Also, she's kind of a "guru" cultist (her following right from the beginning holds many similarities to a cult).

Russell for the lovely work in logic and collected essays on religion, Quine for rocking my semantic world, and Wittgenstein, because I love the passing over in silence (roughly) bit. And because it tickles me how much the pre- and post-hermit years differ.

[INTJohn]

I highly disagree with one calling Rand and Peikoff philosophers, but that's the analytic philosopher in me screaming at you. Also, she's kind of a "guru" cultist (her following right from the beginning holds many similarities to a cult).

Russell for the lovely work in logic and collected essays on religion, Quine for rocking my semantic world, and Wittgenstein, because I love the passing over in silence (roughly) bit. And because it tickles me how much the pre- and post-hermit years differ.

WOW!!!!!!! someone who actually understands this topic but I'm also interested in knowing your ability to apply it toward the advancement of the Human Condition - in what I perceive to be........a secular manner? or is it simply "rote knowledge"?

INTJohn

[shellbelle]

Some of it's rote, some of it's from study.

My boyfriend was a recovering objectivist (I will NOT capitalize that) about two years ago, and so I decided to find out what he was recovering from. All I can say is that any ideology that venerates a fictional rape victim who likes it as the ideal woman needs to get a clue. Well, obviously, there's more to it. But The Fountainhead left an awful taste in my mouth. Anyone amused by Rand ought to get their hands on the video game Bioshock, for the xbox 360. It's directly based on a Randian utopia-turned-dystopia.

Russell, I do know about, through his contributions to logic (Russell's Paradox among others) and his 'Why I Am Not A Christian', Quine I haven't read yet but have discussed his ideas in detail, and Wittgenstein, I just know the historical details of his life and the one famous line, which always makes me think about our process of naming.

I'm probably a Hume fan more than these. Julia Annas is also a favorite. The Cornell school of moral realism is my default semantically right now, so I might as well acknowledge them as well.

I'm a philosopher, and I'm still learning. I hope to apply it to the advancement of the human condition, once I'm on to my master's studies.

[logan235711]

Many people want a summary--you don't understand how contemporary philosophy is if you are asking this. Most philosophers have a stance and idea on individual arguments not a whole connecting 'theory' that interweaves between them all. They 'may' say they are a following a certain tradition, but that is only so people in the field can understand which arguments their careers are focused on developing. So if John needs advice on some roots of some Neo-Kantian Germanic mid 1800s arguments he can go to Bob who focuses on arguments that developed out of that era/field. So maybe the initial post was worded incorrectly and wasn't aware of this distinction as well.

In any case, I enjoy arguments from most philosophers up there, some are pseudo-philosophers so their arguments maybe a bit bland, simple, or inaccurate. In addition most of these are from the logical empiricists tradition and philosophy of science and so there does seem to be a bit of a bias.