Slowly getting caught up with blogging. A few philosophy blogs are listing their "all time desert-island, top 5 philosophers." By which I assume the philosophers you'd want to have to read if trapped on an island like Tom Hanks for several years.
My list would be:
C. S. Peirce - sometimes I get cynical and think philosophy is useless or just people making arguments to justify their preconceptions. Then I read Peirce. First Peirce made philosophy useful. Even if you only see in Peirce a matter of fixing ones beliefs or making ones beliefs clear, one has done a lot. But he truly unified a lot of ways of thinking for me. Further, somewhat a rarity among significant philosophers, Peirce wrote clear, concise and easy to understand prose. I wish I could write as well. Give me his collected works and I'd probably never run out of things to think about or write about.
Jaques Derrida - Yes, the despised one himself. For all his flaws, I think he really opened my eyes to certain issues in philosophy. Further, while I know many will doubt me, I think he engaged in close semiotical readings of text. What he was interested in though was what the text obscured, left marginalized or excluded. If Peirce was attempting to clarify and simply then Derrida was attempting to problemitize and point out that our efforts at clarity were always limited. I'm still not sure where I come down on the Derrida - Peirce divide. But if Peirce's writing is enjoyable for its scientific and logical clarity, Derrida is enjoyable for the opposite. There is a great deal of skill in his writing that I know many simply wish to reject or ridicule. However you truly have to master his earlier texts through the early 70's and grasp his relationship with Husserl, Heidegger, Peirce, and perhaps even Hegel. (Well - I don't really fully grasp the Hegelian relationships. But then I'd have a nice sojourn on an Island to do so)
Plato - Yes, the guy we all read as freshmen and that I think far, far too many philosophers rarely read thereafter. I should add that Peirce and Derrida are interesting to me because both view philosophy and thinking as dialogical in nature. In a way both are very much in harmony with Plato. Yes, I suspect many won't see it. But how Plato conducted philosophy was important. And largely neglected thereafter. But, I think the literary form of Plato is very important and further it opens up his texts for endless questioning. It's almost enough to make me finish learning Greek.
Ricoeur - Underrated philosopher. Oneself as Another is a classic and really affected my views on so many things. His work on symbol is quite important as well. He considers himself a Kantian, but I just enjoy reading him and his work on time, narrative and other such matters.
Davidson - Really surprisingly like Peirce the more I read him. I don't always agree with him. But as often as not when I think I disagree with him, I end up coming back years later and think that perhaps he was more subtle than I first realized. In my opinion (surely disputed) he is the philosopher of the last 50 years.
Richard added five philosophers he feels guilty about not having read. I have some - and I've often still hit myself for not getting into them.
Kierkegaard - I tried back in college. I truly did. Everyone kept talking about him. But something just kept me from getting very far into any of his books. Keith keeps dropping notes about him here telling me I ought to read him more.
Wittgenstein - to be fair I have read about him. But the only think by him I've read was an afternoon's superficial reading of the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. Hardly enough to count.
Aristotle - I've read excerpts for classes. I've read about him a lot - although surprisingly not as much as I ought to. Especially considering his role in far too many figures I do read. I keep saying I'm going to make him a topic of study. Somehow someone else always ends up being more interesting. It's my hidden shame.
Hegel - I've read about him, but never his actual texts. Given that a lot of philosophy is a series of explanations of how Hegel was an idiot, perhaps its not as big a loss as some think.
C. I. Lewis - Once again, read about his points. A lot - considering his place in modern philosophy. But I can honestly say I've never actually read one of his papers. A huge deficiency I know.
Runner up - Ockham who I still want to know more about. The beliefs about what his philosophy was and what it appears it was seem quite large.
Glad to see that Derrida was high on your list. Not sure why you call him the "despised one" maybe he's despised by people who aren't up to the challenge. who knows.
Also Ricoeur.
Maybe your not just another right wing Mormon nut case afterall. :-)
If I had a dime for every time I had to defend Derrida. I do think sometimes his style brings on a lot of the problems. But, as with Plato, I'm very convinced there is a reason for the style.
1. Kant
2. Aristotle
3. Plato
4. Whitehead
5. Kierkegaard/William James
How can anyone leave either Kant or Aristotle off of the greatest philosophers list? Pierce ahead of Kant and Plato? Come on.
I think he's despised because of the cartoon of him the English departments keep using.
He's something of a saint in post-modern circles, but I've discovered very few of those who use him actually understand him (some do, I'm not blasting all post-modernists).
However, those who know even less about him tend to focuse their wrath on him, rather than on those who use a caricature of him.
Note that it wasn't the greatest philosophers list. That would definitely include different figures for me. Rather its the philosophers whose works you'd bring to a desert island. For instance I surely don't think either Derrida, Davidson or Ricoeur among the greatest philosophers. But I'd rather read them than many of the greats.
But that's a great question. Who are the greatest philosophers? Probably that would be impossible to fairly only pick 5. Were I to pick I'd say:
1. Plato. Surely no one would disagree here.
2. Aristotle. And let's be honest. A lot of the Plato that we received was highly filtered by Aristotle. Aristotle is still amazingly influential.
3. Descartes. Really ushered in modern philosophy and a lot of modern science as well. The father of the modern era for both good and ill.
4. Kant. Really solidified how one does philosophy. Even when people don't realize they are doing Kantianism they are. Reconciled a lot of the work that went on before.
5. Heidegger. Hard choice since I nearly picked one of the analytic fellows. But even though Heidegger is disliked far too much among analytic philosophes, I think he really revolutionized how we think about philosophy. He brought back questions of transcendence, emphasized holism and a living world, and put the practical at least on par with the theoretical ala the pragmatists.
Runners up: Carnap, Wittgenstein, Plotinus, Quine, Russell.
Ivan,
Do you mean a literial cartoon or are you referring to the way second rate academics write articles that parody his work?
If its a real cartoon is there a link?
As someone who used to travel in post-structural circles, I wouldn't call him a saint but he sure opens up a lot of possibilities and challenges traditional notions of thought, language, philosophy, ethics etc.
Clark-- regarding the five you haven't read:
If you are going to give Kierkegaard a try, start with "Fear and Trembling" or "Philosophical Fragments". They are both short, to the point, and germane to your interests (as I understand them). Derrida's "The Gift of Life" does not make a whole lof of sense without a good reading of the former.
Aristotle, at least in small doses, is absolutely required for reading Heidegger. In fact, reading Aristotle via Heidegger's footnotes might not be a bad strategy.
Wittgenstein (that is to say, the Wittgenstein that people mean when they say "Wittgenstein") is miles away from the Tractatus. The "Philosophical Investigations" is the key text here-- beautifully written, and a profound mind-fuck. I generally can't read more than a few pages before I have to stop and ponder to let the implications arise.
Hegel? Easy to read about, than to read. I think I'd put him on my desert island list for precisely this reason-- it is the only way I'd get around to reading him all the way through. I'd pass, if I were you.
C.I.Lewis? Not only have I never read him, I couldn't tell you a single thing about him. Completely off my radar.
I should clarify out that I've read fragments of Kierkegaard and read about him (primarily for reading Gift of Death). I just haven't read him through and through.
Here are seven I'd like to hear in an ongoing discussion group on the Island:
1. Kierkegaard
2. Levinas
3. Wittgenstein
4. Nietzsche
5. Buber
6. Heidegger
7. Al-Ghazali
They could have a different guest join them once every couple of weeks or so. They could bring in all the greats.
Their topic: The Holy Life
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble