who is greatest philosopher of 20th century?
#11
Aqua Teen Hunger Force, albeit not consciously.

Quote:Turkatron: Is that taco pie?
Meatwad: Mmm-hmm.
Turkatron: Taco pie!
Meatwad: I added food coloring because it's a holiday. But it turned black, because I added all the food coloring I had. Then I ate this butter straight out of the tub, because it tastes good. There's a reason behind everything.

[Image: 118805.jpg]

See?  An argument for the necessity of causality.
Reply
#12
(01-19-2011, 09:58 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Aqua Teen Hunger Force, albeit not consciously.

Quote:Turkatron: Is that taco pie?
Meatwad: Mmm-hmm.
Turkatron: Taco pie!
Meatwad: I added food coloring because it's a holiday. But it turned black, because I added all the food coloring I had. Then I ate this butter straight out of the tub, because it tastes good. There's a reason behind everything.

[Image: 118805.jpg]

See?  An argument for the necessity of causality.

hehe! i agree with this:

(01-19-2011, 12:32 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: I love when philosophy asserts itself in pop culture.

makes it go down easier like flinstone vitamins (though i choked on one of those onece and had phobia of pillsr long time)
Reply
#13
(01-19-2011, 09:45 PM)Walty Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 07:13 PM)icecream Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 06:38 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I'd go with Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange; he was a Thomist.  Some of his works are available in English; of note, there's his Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought.

ive heard of him. i suppose i was expecting non-catholic philosphers but i dont know why. who the best non-catholic philosphers of 20th century?

I'd agree with this, but I would say that he is more correctly labelled a theologians.

yeah i dont get the distinction. i suppose catholic dont need philosophers. they have their own in-house, but by different name
Reply
#14
(01-19-2011, 09:55 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 09:43 PM)icecream Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 08:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It depends on what you mean by "greatest." Heidegger or Wittgenstein would probably be the most common answers. However, you should probably read a lot of earlier philosophy before attempting them.

how is a philopsher defined as "great"?
The greatest philosopher doesn't necessarily have to be the best philosopher. "Great" might just mean that he has had the greatest influence on the course of philosophy, either by attacking a previous school of thought or by starting a new school or method of philosophy.

i gotcha!

i think i could be a great philosopher if i tried hard enogunh
Reply
#15
“It is only in language that one can mean something by something.”—Ludwig Wittgenstein
Reply
#16
(01-19-2011, 09:55 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 09:43 PM)icecream Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 08:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It depends on what you mean by "greatest." Heidegger or Wittgenstein would probably be the most common answers. However, you should probably read a lot of earlier philosophy before attempting them.

how is a philopsher defined as "great"?
The greatest philosopher doesn't necessarily have to be the best philosopher. "Great" might just mean that he has had the greatest influence on the course of philosophy, either by attacking a previous school of thought or by starting a new school or method of philosophy.

If that's the case then I think you'd have to go with Nietzsche.  If you count the early 19th century as modern then I'd go with Hegel.
Reply
#17
(01-19-2011, 11:47 PM)Walty Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 09:55 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 09:43 PM)icecream Wrote:
(01-19-2011, 08:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It depends on what you mean by "greatest." Heidegger or Wittgenstein would probably be the most common answers. However, you should probably read a lot of earlier philosophy before attempting them.

how is a philopsher defined as "great"?
The greatest philosopher doesn't necessarily have to be the best philosopher. "Great" might just mean that he has had the greatest influence on the course of philosophy, either by attacking a previous school of thought or by starting a new school or method of philosophy.

If that's the case then I think you'd have to go with Nietzsche.  If you count the early 19th century as modern then I'd go with Hegel.
If we're looking at all modern philosophy then I'd say Kant. Although Kant has to be one of the most dull philosophers to ever put pen to paper. Nietzsche, on the other hand, is certainly the most important when it comes to continental philosophy, and he knew how to write.
Reply
#18
(01-19-2011, 09:58 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Aqua Teen Hunger Force, albeit not consciously.

Quote:Turkatron: Is that taco pie?
Meatwad: Mmm-hmm.
Turkatron: Taco pie!
Meatwad: I added food coloring because it's a holiday. But it turned black, because I added all the food coloring I had. Then I ate this butter straight out of the tub, because it tastes good. There's a reason behind everything.

[Image: 118805.jpg]

Enjoy those tacos now.  Because in a thousand years, they will be... ILLEGAL.  I think... we... all.... know.... why.  he he...

See?  An argument for the necessity of causality.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#19
dang i failed on the quote html
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#20
(01-19-2011, 11:43 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: “It is only in language that one can mean something by something.”—Ludwig Wittgenstein

i dont get it. please explain
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)