what's your favorite philisophy, philisophical doctrine, movement or philosopher?

Question

I love philosophy, as a subject, as an expressive art, as a whole. I personally find the fields of existentialism and phenomenology fascinating, as well as linguistic theory and how it allows for thought and varying degrees of communication. Heidegger and Foucault are my favorites. I love the totally unique and interdisciplinary approach that they take with their writing. Also, the more of their works I read, the more of my own beliefs I seem to be revealing to myself as already thought, printed, and published. what an amazing, enlightening experience!
I also like the many other modern/postmodern authors, like Sarte, DeBeauvois, Mearleau-Ponty, Lacan, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Nietzche, and Derrida.

So what is your favorite philosophy (or who is your favorite philosopher) and why?

ps. I'm not asking for judgements or critiques of morality, relevance, quality or significance; only comments concerning the nature of the philosophy and its influence in your life.

Answer 1

Heidegger!

Heidegger addresses the problem of oppositional dualism, a mode of thought so pervasive in Western thinking that it separates ourselves from our own experience as human beings.

Heidegger addresses this magically. He shows how, within its framework, our very language expresses a root level bias. This bias provides the basis for individual thinking, hence pervades our culture. Dualism breeds inequality, for its very basis is the superiority of rational thought over one's perceptions. (aka Plato.)

Heidegger postultates a way out of this. He postuates a new mode of thinking which is actually a path back to our own humanity. It is only though human-kind that the world is made intelligible. All of my experiences are humanized by the inter-play of thought and feeling. One is not superior to the other. Heidegger's mode of thought offers equality of relationship. Next to all of the philosophers before him, he is a mouthful.

I relate this to my personal experience, because philosophy is, after all, based upon personal experience and observation.

Many times I have looked at the ocean, a leaf, felt the wind and known them both as they are and as they are with me. Letting the ocean be itself, I have seen the ocean breathe. There have been moments when what I perceived was not boxed into a prior definition. I simply saw it for itself. At these moments, I, too, have been different. I am different because of this realization of both letting something be and letting myself be, as well. It is an incredible feeling to partipate in the event and, at the same time, know it, feel related.

I don't think Heidegger meant to get pantheistic. But I feel far more satisfied with him than any of his predecessors. He has instilled in me the desire for futher inquiry and gives me a frame of reference different from the earlier others. Heidegger is a guiding light to help me develop my own thoughts and direct my reading.

I also get a sense of responsibility from Heidegger. As a co-given with the world, I have a responsibility to the world. We rely upon each other to reach our full potential. I have a responsibility to bring all I can to my perception. The more I can bring to it, the more it can become.

Heidegger gives me a sense of composure about my place in the world.

I hope this answers your question. Heidegger, for me, is a new mode of thinking.

P.S. I also read a lot of Sartre, incl. his trilogy, but esp. loved Simone's stuff, including the eminently readable "A very easy death."

Answer 2

Yes and no is probably not a good answer. But for the sake of argument, let's say it is not. And from this method we will prove that it is.
The real question is hidden in this parody. And it is, "Did man descend from early species (Australopithecus), or did God create man from dust and take his rib to form woman. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.
It is logically a fallacy to argue that there is "one"
"true" god. The proposition presupposes an assumption,
which has and is not substantiated by evidence.
"Faith", as we know it is also untenable. Since it
too is based on several confabulated fallacies. The
same is accurate with respect to agnosticism and
atheism. It's not the case to say, that we do not
know one way or another, but it is also not the case
that we do not know that we do not know. The
ambiguity leaves us in a state of evidence, or the
absence thereof, because we cannot explain the
implacability of the universe, which leads us to
Existentialism Kierkegaard, Freddy Nietzsche(AKA,
hermit, whore monger and syphilitic near-do well),
Sartre, Camus and other agnostics, who wanted to
rationalize their hatred for the Stoics in way form or
fashion they could. Thus, they ruminated around and
hatched one of the most dangerous philosophies on
earth: the idea that man is essentially nothing pitted
against the implacability of the universe. If this is
so, then it also nothing to kill somebody, which as we
all know is nonsense. Rather than admit, that their
philosophy breaks down, they would rather proselytize
verisimilitude's of its vagary upon the world as being
the end all and be all of belief systems. The
evidence of the reality check on it is quite another matter. Religion: if it's organized, then pick your poison.

East of Escape, West of a Guess, North of No Such, South of a Search

Answer 3

In my opinion, I have two favorite individuals who may not be preceived as philosophers in their respective fields but collectively had a major impact upon mankind as we know it today.

Two contemporary close friends of their time were...

Albrecht Durer ("Mistic" & Religious Artist) 1471-1528;
and
Martin Luther ("Spritual" & Religious Reformer)1483-1546.

For me, they prehaps made the greatest team in setting the stage for modern philosohy (in part), including its influence, both in deed and in action, both in the "spoken" word and in the "unspoken" word.

Prehaps, It might lead one to ask back at that time, "What does one have to do with the other(?)"; only to fast forward to today...and we see the results of their work (...and many others who were akin to them for that matter). For some of us, to see only "in part"; for others, to see "in total"...an elightenment...prehaps?

This is an association that is not mentioned much in public circles or forums; within the arts, religion, or philosophy. Why should it be(?); or any other similar amalgamation of brotherhood(s) be so mentioned at all, when "All things" both great and small seem to conform so well for the "Common Cause" of all mankind.

With influence you have leadership for good or not. They both had it. My two references have influenced my life in such a way that I will always be aware or ask who is "Minding the Store"

If I were in Charge of the world with an idea of Philosohy on how to do it, I still would feel I would truely be at a loss.

I don't think mankind can ever fix all the ills of the world and Satan isn't going to change a thing ...because all is well and in accordace to the will of his own philosophy...

Answer 4

No real favorite, but I am impressed with Martin Buber and his treatise "I and Thou" published as Ich und Du. It is stated that one can have a relationship with a tree or a rock, perhaps any object in front of the one experiencing a perceptual reality. Throw one to the tree huggers maybe, or the rock throwers. The object is God manifested as the Other.

It's what one feels when in front of a view, object, person or thing.

Answer 5

Ayn Rand is my favorite philospher. Not only was she very, very rational, but I give her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" the main credit for my escape from drug addiction.

Humanism is my favorite philosophy. Again, very, very rational. It is the only value system that I am aware of that is commensurate with scientific reasoning.


however, I also have a soft spot for determinism, because it seems so probable.

Answer 6

I have read a few philosophers but I have to admit that Yoga Buddhism and Christianism have given me the most gifts in the form of tools to open the mind.

Of those I prefer Yoga/Vedanta.

Answer 7

A book called "Seth Speaks..the eternal validity of the soul." It touches aspects of all physical, spiritual, and meta-physical thinking in great detail, covering religion, science, reincarnation, after death experience and choices, and much more.

Answer 8

I like Friedrich Nietzsche and Cicero.

I like the ideas of Cicero about state and its functions. I'm an economist and that's why this issue is of high interest to me.

As for Nietzsche, he didn't afraid to call things by their true names. I like his words like this:
"The advantage of a bad memory is that one enjoys several times the same good things for the first time. "
or this:
"The visionary lies to himself, the liar only to others."
:-)

Answer 9

Every situation is like an uncarved block of stone. You have to deside how you want to carve it. You have some control over every situation, but not complete control for the stone may crack.

Answer 10

confusha say man who go to bed with itchy butt wake up with smelly finger[sorry it's dumb but my step father always says it when i ask him for add vice i guess it's his way of saying he doesn't know but a smile will help almost anything ]that's his philosophy and i like his better then the more famous philosophers