Your Philosopher of Choice is ...

[Ben]

Connections between da Vinci and Machiavelli

An interesting book is Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power by Douglas Masters. In the book, Masters writes about the relationship between Leonardo daVinci and Niccolo Machiavelli and how they knew each other and may have even influenced each others' ideas.

The other really interesting part of this book is that Masters argues that Machiavelli's The Prince may be a subversive work, designed to either make the idea of being a despot distasteful and/or hasten the downfall of princes. He spends some time contrasting The Prince with The Discourses.

While I am not sure Masters is correct entirely, this book changed the way I read things.

 

[melankomas]

An interesting book is Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power by Douglas Masters. In the book, Masters writes about the relationship between Leonardo daVinci and Niccolo Machiavelli and how they knew each other and may have even influenced each others' ideas.

The other really interesting part of this book is that Masters argues that Machiavelli's The Prince may be a subversive work, designed to either make the idea of being a despot distasteful and/or hasten the downfall of princes. He spends some time contrasting The Prince with The Discourses.

While I am not sure Masters is correct entirely, this book changed the way I read things.

i daresay it may have been subversive, given that the "despotic" Medici had ousted him from Florence.

 

[Viola]

Can I vote for John Wayne?

 

[Archie Goodwin]

Liberal education gone wrong

I went to a liberal arts university, so I had to read most of the people already mentioned. Some I enjoyed, some not. Fifteen years later, the one I turn to most often is Marcus Aurelius. Stoicism is sometimes the only way to get through the day in our modern world.

 

[TOTTIE]

Wittgenstein
... Derrida and Foucault.

I don't think I've ever met anyone who likes that combination before... Is that later Wittgenstein, then?

I'm afraid I'm an Emmanuel Kant girl every time. None of the French stuff for me, oh no.

 

[Harp]

Fifteen years later, the one I turn to most often is Marcus Aurelius. Stoicism is sometimes the only way to get through the day in our modern world.

Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher who kept himself rather distant,
impersonal. Imperious et incuriosus. He must have inwardly suffered
the soldier's grief.

 

[Harp]

I don't think I've ever met anyone who likes that combination before... Is that later Wittgenstein, then?

I'm afraid I'm an Emmanuel Kant girl every time. None of the French stuff for me, oh no.

...I was a Cartesian agnostic in cavalier youth; Wittgenstein's view
toward Rene D. intrigues; all the more so since W retracted his earlier
philosophic positions. Derrida and Foucault, curious.

 

[Fatdutchman]

Christ is not a philosopher, He is THE PHILOSOPHY!

I like Spurgeon and also enjoy what I have seen from R.C. Sproul.

Truth exists whether one believes in it or not.

I have better things to do than read philosophy!

 

[carebear]

International Philosophy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrShK-NVMIU

 

[carebear]

Philosopher's Song

(one profanity in a punchline)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

For me it depends on what I am in the mood for. I think David Hume is probably one of the most interesting philosophers to read. The ancient Greek philosophers can also be interesting, both Plato and Aristotle in particular, although I think something is definately lost in the translation in terms of writing style. Nietzsche is also a great read.

Ayn Rand has similar political philosophy views to mine, although I find her writing style inferior to many other philosophers although still better than Kant or Descartes.

I would definately say my least favorite "philosopher" is Sartre.

 

[czack]

Zeno, I just don't try to get too excited about him.

 

[carebear]

Zeno, I just don't try to get too excited about him.

The problem with Zeno is that, even if you read enough to cut your ignorance in half, time and time again, you'll still never reach complete understanding.

 

[TOTTIE]

I would definately say my least favorite "philosopher" is Sartre.

hehehehe yes, I like the quotation marks!

 

[Harp]

An interesting book is Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power by Douglas Masters. In the book, Masters writes about the relationship between Leonardo daVinci and Niccolo Machiavelli and how they knew each other and may have even influenced each others' ideas.

The other really interesting part of this book is that Masters argues that Machiavelli's The Prince may be a subversive work, designed to either make the idea of being a despot distasteful and/or hasten the downfall of princes. He spends some time contrasting The Prince with The Discourses.

While I am not sure Masters is correct entirely, this book changed the way I read things.

Machiavelli's meretricious Prince sought d'Medici favor, a sole
objective; devoid of disingenuous pretense or other motive.
To ascribe further inconoclast to Machiavelli is a rather torturous supposition.

 

[jamespowers]

Cicero---easily the idea man behind our current form of government and a man who single handedly staved off the transition from Republic to tyranny of the Roman Empire during his life time. Sadly it took a very short time after his death for Rome to degenerate into blood thirsty shadow of its former self.

Regards,

J

 

[Harp]

I have better things to do than read philosophy!

...sound like a Jesuit.

 

[Harp]

John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua certainly
deserves mention for philosophic conviction.

 

[Harp]

Samuel Beckett, Irish scribe

"The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the $xxt the more I am grateful to him.
[/B]

Beckett's "Cartesian omelet" perspective strikes again!

 

[Amelie]

I think the main problem with sartre is that his philosophy seams rather simple at a first glance, and it is why it has been so popular. People are often reading him in that way, and I think a lot of people gave him intentions that he don't have

His philosophy is in fact very complex, and more than hard to applicate. I really like the main idea in it, but it's just impossible for me to live like I would have to if I was really following his ideas

please don't kill me for liking him (well, killing is an image, just please respect my opinion^^)

(and I am really sorry for the mistakes here, I am conscious that I am making a lot, but I am trying my best ^^)