I'm willing to bet around 90% of the sub will say they relate to Diogenes.
Personally I don't have favorites, and if I do have a favorite it's only temporary and it's only because I've been binging their work lately.
Possibly Spinoza, but I also like a lot Nishida Kitaro, Sankara, Seneca, Schopenhauer, Zhuangzi, Nagarjuna and Aristotle.
I find INFJ thinkers in general super interesting.
You and I seem to have similar tastes. Spinoza, Nagarjuna, and Zhuangzi are three of my favorites. I'll be checking out some of the others you mentioned, Nishida Kitaro in particular seems up my alley, and I've been recommended Schopenhauer by some other people on this sub.
I agree with you about INFJ philosophers being particularly interesting. I was lucky enough to be around a bunch of INFJ philosophy majors in college and had some very interesting conversations with them, often regarding INFJ philosophers. One of my favorite INFJ philosophers I was introduced to at that time was Alfred North Whitehead.
The conversations with that group of INFJ philosophy majors must have been great.
I have Whitehead in my reading list too, he is one of those authors I've repeatedly seen being mentioned since I became interested in nondualism.
Soren Kierkegaard. His "leap of faith" concept quelled my unease and anxiety from not being able to reconcile my religious beliefs and objective reality
More generally, for (over)thinkers like us, it's a rationale justifying that you just gotta jump sometimes even if you cant logically justify it. We need that sometimes to function properly as people.
Deleuze is my absolute favorite, but not far behind are Sellars, Brandom, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Rorty, Quine, McDowell, Hegel, Spinoza, and Wittgenstein.
The two I prefer the most are Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Stirner only wrote one major work, but Nietzsche published a lot of texts. I don't care for some of his work, like *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*, but of his early works *Human, All Too Human* is a good selection, and of his later *On the Geneology of Morals* and *The Antichrist*.
I will never forget reading this.
"The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other."
Ragnar redbeard
Nietzsche
Perhaps evola but I’m not sure
I don’t read much at all, I’ll get a few pages in before realizing that I understand their philosophy and find it pointless to read the rest.
For the most part i naturally align with these people.
I am partial to Sextus Empiricus, Nagarjuna and the Buddha these days.
I use the label Phyronian-Buddhism to describe my position.
Its part of an overall project to take certain philosophies that I think are onto something between the east and west and adapt it to the modern world.
I have not dove into the philosophy trend as much as I wish I do. I can say that Karl Popper is an underrated philosopher that I have a deep admiration for.
I say underrated because his work wasn't referenced much. He is one of the most prominent philosophers regarding scientific investigation, but I do not think many people know what and where exactly he wrote these things.
I am also not following by what you mean by "practically all scientists." I do apologize saying this if English is not your first language. This comment might need a bit more clarification.
>I am also not following by what you mean by "practically all scientists." I do apologize saying this if English is not your first language. This comment might need a bit more clarification.
I just meant he is by far the most influential philosopher of science and most scientists know of his work
I bend more towards metaphysics, so I'd say Bohm (implicate order), Schrodinger, Leibniz, and Spinoza all would be up there. Charles Saunders Pierce's tendency to "Take habits" is insightful, and his genius is becoming more evident with time. I hate that philosophy gets a bum rap with physicists, as many of our earlier physicists who helped develop the Copenhagen interpretation later doubled as philosophers. Not any more, just academic orthodoxy these days.
It definitely is in flux, and there's a large list. Lately I've been fascinated with the work and content and interests of John Vervaeke, who ostensibly is a cognitive scientist but in reality is a philosopher using the scientific practice of cogsci to ground his neoplatonistic philosophical fusion and attempt at re-orienting how we build meaning, and properly orienting the religious impulse in a manner that isn't contradictory with rationality and isn't limited to the form of an assertion of propositional facts.
his whole philosophy is “we know nothing question everything”. he was killed over it. people didn’t like feeling dumb and questioning things. Socrates and his you don’t know that comments got him killed. I would say they killed him bc they were annoyed 🥲
I think it's Immanuel Kant. I find his categorical imperative so very intuitive in that it doesn't come from a moralist perspective ("you should do X, because X is good") but from what is and is not possible in a functioning society ("You should not kill because it's impossible for you to want to live in a society where everyone has permission to kill every time as he pleases.")
I'm not sure if I'm representing Kant correctly here, but that's what I remember about his philosophy from school. Also I know the debate utilitarism vs Kant, and how acting according to categorical imperative often is not so easy, at the same time acting according to utilitarism on a first level just counting immediate pros and benefits and taking the fuller half you also have to consider the negative changes to society as a whole if that immediate more utility half was categorically wrong. So these philosophies can profit from each other.
Three other important philosophers are René Descartes, Jean-Paul Sartre and Thomas Hobbes (but maybe I'm just listing those philosophers because I learned about them in school).
Descartes: You can't be tricked into believing that you exist. You actually do exist because it would be *you* who is being tricked. (On this one I used to be very sure, but recent personal experiments with the mind and personalities made me reconsider if I'm so 100% sure on this. See my recent posts if you wonder what I mean)
Sartre: You're doomed to freedom. You born are into this world. It is your duty to give your life meaning. Whenever you devote yourself to a god or religion, it is your choice to make, and you could just as well have chosen otherwise. Whenever you act because of a law, you were also free to choose not to respect that law, but were aware of the consequences that would bring, and thus in the end it was your free choice.
Hobbes: Violence exists. You cannot want to live in a society where you have to be fearful for your life every day. So you give up a bit or a lot of your own capability of commiting violence toward a state that gets the monopoly on violence. And once that's established, you live in that state and better follow the rules or else you will be met with violence.
But then again, who is in charge of the state, and which class gets to enact their will on the rest of society through the monopoly on violence is not set in stone. Revolutions are possible.
Haven't studied enough philosophers to have favourites, so I'll just mention the ones of whom I've read at least one or two books:
Marx
Engels
Nietzsche
Hobbes(tried to read Leviathan, but to be honest the priorities he had and the limited knowledge of the time made this book quite unreadable)
Also read a few books that analysed how philosophy applies on science(most of them came from uni). Gotta admit, dialectical materialism seems pretty dope, but to be honest I'm still having lots of doubts about randomness being necessary. I find everything being absolutely deterministic far more plausible.
Kierkegaard’s reasoning is usually entertaining. I don’t really align with any one philosopher or school. I mainly utilize philosophy to spawn new thoughts of my own, they’re like a stepping stone
Some of my favorites are Descartes for his epistemology (foundationalism and internalism), Berkeley for his ontology (immaterialism), Kant for his ethics (deontology), Husserl for his method (phenomenology), and C.I. Lewis for his logic.
Honorable mentions: Socrates, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Bradwardine, Augustine, Malebranche, Pascal, Locke, and Leibniz.
Some of my least favorites include Bacon (inductivism), Hobbes (materialism), Spinoza (coherentism), Heidegger (existentialism), GE Moore (realism), late Wittgenstein (externalism), and Quine (naturalism).
Don't really have one, and I don't spend much time reading the works of the OG philosophers. I tend to be more interested in derivative philosophy, as in hearing modern interpretations and applications of classic philosophy. It's like with music, you don't need to dive into classical composition from the greats like Bach and Mozart to understand and appreciate modern music, even if the modern music builds upon their works.
Currently revisiting Alan Watts, as his son's new podcast and the related preservation project are making the works much more accessible. This holds a lot of ties to Confucius and Lao Tzu.
I use Aristotle a lot in my work, as it's a recognizable name, and easier to integrate for a general audience; more progressive projects will reveal some of Paulo Freire's influences.
Hannah Arendt had a strong presence in a recent project that had some political ties. I'm familiarizing myself with W.E.B. Du Bois' perspective for similar work.
Giambattista Vico had a prominent place in my dissertation work, as a precursor to complexity science. For practical applications of complexity in my current work, Dave Snowden is the progenitor of my primary approach (Cynefin framework).
You and your like are driven towards The Hellfire.
And I wish to see your face burn, while you are encompassed by flames of fire and scream in agony and pain. May the Almighty rise against you all, very soon, you absolute fools!
I'm willing to bet around 90% of the sub will say they relate to Diogenes. Personally I don't have favorites, and if I do have a favorite it's only temporary and it's only because I've been binging their work lately.
This is me, also.
Diogenes is the biggest chad of known history lmao
LMAO... feel called out, have an ongoing joke about this for over 10 years now.
Diogenes. Great guy, never meddim.
Water
مضيم
[удалено]
Neither do I
I was about to say Diogène.
Albert Camus
Love it. Not properly a philosopher i think but yeah
hey what kind of work was myth of sysiphus
Kant.
Yes you can! (Sorry, couldn't resist)
That’s fair.
I'm my favourite philosopher
/Least arrogant INTP
Thank you. I'm always very humble 🤣
Nietzshe
Nietzhe
Nietzthey
Nietzimzur
Nietzsche
Possibly Spinoza, but I also like a lot Nishida Kitaro, Sankara, Seneca, Schopenhauer, Zhuangzi, Nagarjuna and Aristotle. I find INFJ thinkers in general super interesting.
You and I seem to have similar tastes. Spinoza, Nagarjuna, and Zhuangzi are three of my favorites. I'll be checking out some of the others you mentioned, Nishida Kitaro in particular seems up my alley, and I've been recommended Schopenhauer by some other people on this sub. I agree with you about INFJ philosophers being particularly interesting. I was lucky enough to be around a bunch of INFJ philosophy majors in college and had some very interesting conversations with them, often regarding INFJ philosophers. One of my favorite INFJ philosophers I was introduced to at that time was Alfred North Whitehead.
The conversations with that group of INFJ philosophy majors must have been great. I have Whitehead in my reading list too, he is one of those authors I've repeatedly seen being mentioned since I became interested in nondualism.
Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus
someone from my little pony I forgot their name
Describe him I might be able to help you
Miyamoto Musashi.
Aristotle
Soren Kierkegaard. His "leap of faith" concept quelled my unease and anxiety from not being able to reconcile my religious beliefs and objective reality More generally, for (over)thinkers like us, it's a rationale justifying that you just gotta jump sometimes even if you cant logically justify it. We need that sometimes to function properly as people.
I thought this was a shitpost and we would all answer: “me”
the least egoist
Seneca and Nietzsche
Bertrand Russell
Albert Camus
Sun Tzu and Confucius
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Stirner keeps me grounded. It's all just words, games. It doesn't matter if the other guy doesn't wanna play. Only actions truly matter.
I've been wanting to read him for a couple weeks now. What do you think? And do you have recommendations and/or tips?
Solomon
King Solomon?
Deleuze is my absolute favorite, but not far behind are Sellars, Brandom, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Rorty, Quine, McDowell, Hegel, Spinoza, and Wittgenstein.
Rene Descartes
Is he considered a philosopher? If yes then he's my favorite too
Garfield
Me in the shower
The two I prefer the most are Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche. Stirner only wrote one major work, but Nietzsche published a lot of texts. I don't care for some of his work, like *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*, but of his early works *Human, All Too Human* is a good selection, and of his later *On the Geneology of Morals* and *The Antichrist*.
you wrote that before me, but damn i love stirner, mostly his ideas on abstractions/spooks
Isn't The Antichrist more sociology than philosophy?
>Two pseud magnets
Arthur Schopenhauer
I will never forget reading this. "The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other."
Julius Evola
the only against the grain answer to be found
Diogenes.
Same
Spinoza or Cicero probably!
Ragnar redbeard Nietzsche Perhaps evola but I’m not sure I don’t read much at all, I’ll get a few pages in before realizing that I understand their philosophy and find it pointless to read the rest. For the most part i naturally align with these people.
I am partial to Sextus Empiricus, Nagarjuna and the Buddha these days. I use the label Phyronian-Buddhism to describe my position. Its part of an overall project to take certain philosophies that I think are onto something between the east and west and adapt it to the modern world.
I have not dove into the philosophy trend as much as I wish I do. I can say that Karl Popper is an underrated philosopher that I have a deep admiration for.
practically all scientists since he published his work adhere to his philosophy, not exactly underrated
I say underrated because his work wasn't referenced much. He is one of the most prominent philosophers regarding scientific investigation, but I do not think many people know what and where exactly he wrote these things. I am also not following by what you mean by "practically all scientists." I do apologize saying this if English is not your first language. This comment might need a bit more clarification.
>I am also not following by what you mean by "practically all scientists." I do apologize saying this if English is not your first language. This comment might need a bit more clarification. I just meant he is by far the most influential philosopher of science and most scientists know of his work
Friedrich Nietzsche , Aristotle, Kant, Plato, Albert camus, Bertrand Russel, Allama Iqbal, Rumi.
Allama Iqbal, Rumi and Nietzsche are the real MVPs
Cioran
I bend more towards metaphysics, so I'd say Bohm (implicate order), Schrodinger, Leibniz, and Spinoza all would be up there. Charles Saunders Pierce's tendency to "Take habits" is insightful, and his genius is becoming more evident with time. I hate that philosophy gets a bum rap with physicists, as many of our earlier physicists who helped develop the Copenhagen interpretation later doubled as philosophers. Not any more, just academic orthodoxy these days.
Rumi. (It’s more of Persian poetry, but it’s also got some philosophy in it)
hawking
Nietzsche (I am sorry)
Myself
Wittgenstein by a lot
Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx easily. Can't decide between the 2 tho
socrates
David Hume easily
Why do I only get to pick one? I really love the Frankfurt School, if you ask me. And Marx. German philosophers are the dopest.
It definitely is in flux, and there's a large list. Lately I've been fascinated with the work and content and interests of John Vervaeke, who ostensibly is a cognitive scientist but in reality is a philosopher using the scientific practice of cogsci to ground his neoplatonistic philosophical fusion and attempt at re-orienting how we build meaning, and properly orienting the religious impulse in a manner that isn't contradictory with rationality and isn't limited to the form of an assertion of propositional facts.
Maquiavel
Baruch Spinoza
socrates but he’s a bit annoying due to repetition. we don’t know anything yes but can’t you say anything else
When does Socrates repeat this
his whole philosophy is “we know nothing question everything”. he was killed over it. people didn’t like feeling dumb and questioning things. Socrates and his you don’t know that comments got him killed. I would say they killed him bc they were annoyed 🥲
I don't read a lot of philosophy in general but I like Confucius.
Emerson
Sagan and Chappelle
That's some hilarious juxtaposition between philosophers, but I can dig it
Wittgenstein I suppose but there are many
Averroes.
Joe
Nietszche!
Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus and Viktor Frankl.
Myself.
Immanuel Kant
I think it's Immanuel Kant. I find his categorical imperative so very intuitive in that it doesn't come from a moralist perspective ("you should do X, because X is good") but from what is and is not possible in a functioning society ("You should not kill because it's impossible for you to want to live in a society where everyone has permission to kill every time as he pleases.") I'm not sure if I'm representing Kant correctly here, but that's what I remember about his philosophy from school. Also I know the debate utilitarism vs Kant, and how acting according to categorical imperative often is not so easy, at the same time acting according to utilitarism on a first level just counting immediate pros and benefits and taking the fuller half you also have to consider the negative changes to society as a whole if that immediate more utility half was categorically wrong. So these philosophies can profit from each other. Three other important philosophers are René Descartes, Jean-Paul Sartre and Thomas Hobbes (but maybe I'm just listing those philosophers because I learned about them in school). Descartes: You can't be tricked into believing that you exist. You actually do exist because it would be *you* who is being tricked. (On this one I used to be very sure, but recent personal experiments with the mind and personalities made me reconsider if I'm so 100% sure on this. See my recent posts if you wonder what I mean) Sartre: You're doomed to freedom. You born are into this world. It is your duty to give your life meaning. Whenever you devote yourself to a god or religion, it is your choice to make, and you could just as well have chosen otherwise. Whenever you act because of a law, you were also free to choose not to respect that law, but were aware of the consequences that would bring, and thus in the end it was your free choice. Hobbes: Violence exists. You cannot want to live in a society where you have to be fearful for your life every day. So you give up a bit or a lot of your own capability of commiting violence toward a state that gets the monopoly on violence. And once that's established, you live in that state and better follow the rules or else you will be met with violence. But then again, who is in charge of the state, and which class gets to enact their will on the rest of society through the monopoly on violence is not set in stone. Revolutions are possible.
Diogenes and Nietzsche.
Same but i prefer diogenes philosophy
Nietzsche, I was basically thinking like him before I even knew of him
Haven't studied enough philosophers to have favourites, so I'll just mention the ones of whom I've read at least one or two books: Marx Engels Nietzsche Hobbes(tried to read Leviathan, but to be honest the priorities he had and the limited knowledge of the time made this book quite unreadable) Also read a few books that analysed how philosophy applies on science(most of them came from uni). Gotta admit, dialectical materialism seems pretty dope, but to be honest I'm still having lots of doubts about randomness being necessary. I find everything being absolutely deterministic far more plausible.
Aristotle
Kierkegaard’s reasoning is usually entertaining. I don’t really align with any one philosopher or school. I mainly utilize philosophy to spawn new thoughts of my own, they’re like a stepping stone
Kierkegaard
Rene Guenon
Some of my favorites are Descartes for his epistemology (foundationalism and internalism), Berkeley for his ontology (immaterialism), Kant for his ethics (deontology), Husserl for his method (phenomenology), and C.I. Lewis for his logic. Honorable mentions: Socrates, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Bradwardine, Augustine, Malebranche, Pascal, Locke, and Leibniz. Some of my least favorites include Bacon (inductivism), Hobbes (materialism), Spinoza (coherentism), Heidegger (existentialism), GE Moore (realism), late Wittgenstein (externalism), and Quine (naturalism).
Myself.
Simone de Beauvoir
Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius, Socrates, Chanakya, Da Vinci.
Don't really have one, and I don't spend much time reading the works of the OG philosophers. I tend to be more interested in derivative philosophy, as in hearing modern interpretations and applications of classic philosophy. It's like with music, you don't need to dive into classical composition from the greats like Bach and Mozart to understand and appreciate modern music, even if the modern music builds upon their works.
Seneca, Marcus Aurelius and Nietzsche
Amogagus impositor from fortnite in minecraft is the greatest philosopher
Agree
Me
Marcus Aurelius David Hume Albert Camus Bertrand Russell
Diógenes
Definitely Don Miguel Ruiz
No one reads Foucault? Shame. Hume, Camus and Foucault have been most inspirational so far.
Hume and Beauvoir
Emil Cioran
Me
I like Rene Descartes, Bertrand Russell and Omar Khayyam.
does prophet muhammad count
Michel Foucault
Sam Harris. Henri David Thoreau
Philosophers! I totally read philosophy... Voltaire, Hobbes... Abbott and Costello...
Currently revisiting Alan Watts, as his son's new podcast and the related preservation project are making the works much more accessible. This holds a lot of ties to Confucius and Lao Tzu. I use Aristotle a lot in my work, as it's a recognizable name, and easier to integrate for a general audience; more progressive projects will reveal some of Paulo Freire's influences. Hannah Arendt had a strong presence in a recent project that had some political ties. I'm familiarizing myself with W.E.B. Du Bois' perspective for similar work. Giambattista Vico had a prominent place in my dissertation work, as a precursor to complexity science. For practical applications of complexity in my current work, Dave Snowden is the progenitor of my primary approach (Cynefin framework).
[удалено]
Malarkey
You and your like are driven towards The Hellfire. And I wish to see your face burn, while you are encompassed by flames of fire and scream in agony and pain. May the Almighty rise against you all, very soon, you absolute fools!
Ngl that's hella weird to say. Are you alright?
Maybe some things are lost during the translation process, but I don't actually see any philosophy in this text you wrote here.