History

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Torsten — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:21:43 GMT

Sartre wasn't anti-libertarian. His whole work is about individual freedom. He dabbled with Marxism for a time, but it was really a mistake. I think he was closer to anarchism.

Really, the only anti-libertarian philosophers are Hobbes, Hegel, Machiavelli, Plato, and Aquinas. Marx is not a philosopher, and even said so.

What would be the evidence for your assertion?

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

vive la insurrection — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:13:44 GMT

Another cute little trick that we did in my Philo 101 class was to do dichotomies for every era so it would look something like this:

Plato v Aristotle

Augustine v Aquinas

Descartes v Bacon (or Locke)

Hume v Kant

and if you want to go overboard:

Hegel v Schopenhaur (?) - one may even wnt to throw in Russell or William James here?

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

vive la insurrection — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:50:48 GMT

I figured you cannot leave Descartes out

Certainly not - like him or not, cutting out Descartes would be like cutting out Plato or Aristotle he's that important (and arguably even more so) when looking at the history of philosophy, it's odd that many people don't seem to get that.

Schopenhauer is funny, he's a crotchty old coot. I think in his will he gave money to the survivors of the 1848 uprisings; not the revolutionaries mind you, but the soldiers who shot them. As far as his influence is concerned, I wouldn't be so sure to say no one listened to him - it was probably a bit more subtle but very improtant influence on the whole "German irrationalism" thing. Eduard von Hartmann, Nietzsche, and Wagner owe a debt to the man.

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

SkepticalMetal — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:10:35 GMT

From my reading so far into Mencken's book on Nietzsche, it looks like a lot of Nietzsche's philosophy evolved out of Schopenhauer's thought, where Nietzsche's primary distinction was that he rejected Schopenhauer's pessimism. So far I'm finding Camus and his thought to be a lot less complex than Nietzsche, requiring a lot less "studying."

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Aristophanes — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:01:17 GMT

I've not really read anything from Nietzsche. I will read some of his aesthetics and morals after Schopenhauer.

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

SkepticalMetal — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:50:46 GMT

Aristophanes, are you into reading Nietzsche?

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Kelvin Silva — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:38:54 GMT

I'd start with the Greeks; Sophists, Plato and Aristotle. Then just follow the story of history (A.K.A. skip the Medieval Era or just read St. Augustine and/or St. Aquinas for the Catholic period. Then maybe Francis Bacon (induction), Descartes (knowing & rational epistemology), Locke (empiricism, epistemology) Hutcheson (Kant's moral lessons / Cristianized Stoicism), Hume (cognition, contra-induction, empiricism, epistemology), Smith (morals, economics), then Kant).

Thanks for the list. What i was looking for.

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Aristophanes — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:32:36 GMT

He's a walk in the park compared to Hegel, that man makes my brain cry. Heidegger is no walk in the park either.

I've haven't decided to jump into the Hegel pool. I've looked over his aesthetics and, obviously, history, but never endeavored to read them. I'm reading Schopenhauer now and he seems to think Hegel was an idiot (and Fichte). And he was jealous of Hegel's popularity when they taught simultaneously. No one relly went to listen to Schopenhauer.

The nazis got Heidegger...

I've long stayed away from going to far into metaphysics. I went through the analytic philosophy of action and Wittgenstein (and related, Ryle, Wiggins, Frege, Russell) last semester. It's all about epistemology, politics (ethics), and logic.

And don't you think Hume is good enough for a start? Smith, Hutchensen, Hobbes, and maybe even Bacon seems like a bit too much for a first run through.

Yeah, you don't need Hobbes. He is still talked about in international relations due to the Realist school, but there are like three famous lines from Leviathan that you can read and understand what he is getting at. He's not really in the same line of inquiry as Kant anyway.

I figured you cannot leave Descartes out and Hume is refuting Bacon and Descartes and building off of Locke, whom I left out. Kant grew up with Hutcheson and Kant's morals are, ultimately, built from Hutcheson's Christian Stoicism (moralism).

Kant's morals and ethics are so fucking specific it is maddening.

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

vive la insurrection — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:57:30 GMT

Kant is one of the most difficult philsophers to read.

He's a walk in the park compared to Hegel, that man makes my brain cry. Heidegger is no walk in the park either.

I think you got the flow of things pretty much spot on. That stated, thinking about doing a "bare bone" primary source run through on metaphysics:

When "starting with the Greeks - it may be best to just start with Aristotle's metaphysics and a couple Plato dialogues. That should cover the pre-socratic well enough. And don't you think Hume is good enough for a start? Smith, Hutchensen, Hobbes, and maybe even Bacon seems like a bit too much for a first run through.

And to the OP:

It is very hard to think about Kant without thinking about Hume

And anything after Kant probably gets a bit tricky for an introductory run through - maybe just suppliment with a basic logic text that covers syllogisms as well?

Oh, and avoid like the plague anybody who says things like "philosophy is nothing but", "all you need for philosophy is", or "don't read philosopher x because" etc, etc - if you're asking for help this person obviously isn't supplying any. Nobody likes a critic, particularly an amature one.

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Aristophanes — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:32:48 GMT

Kant is one of the most difficult philsophers to read. First of all it is translated (German) and second he is so deep about everything. Everyone here knows you are 15 and it is funny that you think that you'll "just read Kant" after Rothbard (which is also funny). You need so much exposure to philosophy before you get to Kant. Ayn Rand doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about with philosophy, just ignore her inputs to that subject (in case you'd seen or considered it).

I'd start with the Greeks; Sophists, Plato and Aristotle. Then just follow the story of history (A.K.A. skip the Medieval Era or just read St. Augustine and/or St. Aquinas for the Catholic period. Then maybe Francis Bacon (induction), Descartes (knowing & rational epistemology), Locke (empiricism, epistemology) Hutcheson (Kant's moral lessons / Cristianized Stoicism), Hume (cognition, contra-induction, empiricism, epistemology), Smith (morals, economics), then Kant). And if you want to really understand Mises you need to understand Kant's First Critique (not an easy read) as it is the primer for metaphysical systems backed by a priori (pure) logic. Schopenhauer was just after Kant and fine tunes the Kantian perspective.

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Kelvin Silva — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:17:42 GMT

Was i supposed to read kant first?

Im sorry but i know nothing about philosophy....

HIs name just sounded interesting thats all.

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Aristophanes — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 06:40:43 GMT

I think ill read kant after mes

ahhhahahahhha

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:07:16 GMT

I think ill read kant after mes

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

Clayton — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:49:21 GMT

Epicurus taken to an extreme gives us the Marquis de Sade.

I don't know how I missed this... what utter nonsense.

Clayton -

Re: Pro-libertarian philosophers and anti-libertarian philosophers

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 01:26:37 GMT

Doesn't socialism require some work?