# Which philosophers, both classical and modern, still speak to our times? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701 "2013-11-24T20:12:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/41 "2013-11-26T16:27:01Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > IANAP, but this, to me, is why Nietzsche is so important not just in philosophy but for the whole post-modern era. IMO he pretty much de-throned rationalism as a singular guiding principle of ethics, society, culture, etc. Agree or disagree, he is a major figure worth at least approaching in order to understand our post-modern world. **Subterraneus,** given your understanding of Nietzsche, would you agree with the below? Excerpts from a review by the late conservative Catholic intellectual John J. Reilly (I’d link to the whole thing, but his website went dark after he died) of [_Fascism: A History,_](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140257004) by Roger Eatwell: > [@](#): > > The ideological component of fascism has often been neglected in favor of psychohistories of fascist leaders and morbid prose poems about national character. This is understandable, since one of the defining features of fascism is ideological syncretism. Usually, this has meant combining “socialism” with some form of nationalism, but even this minimum requires qualification. The study of fascist ideology is made even more difficult by the fact it was most systematically expressed where it had the least influence, in France and Britain. (Eatwell is not an admirer of British fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, but he does give him credit for producing the best thought-out fascist party-platform. The best platform so far, that is.) In any case, at the local level, fascism often had little theoretical content, beyond the privilege of beating people up with impunity. Nevertheless, fascism does have an intellectual history, and the phenomenon as a whole is not so diffuse as to defy definition. > > Fascism would not have been possible without Friedrich Nietzsche. There has been no lack of anti-theistic philosophers both before and after Nietzsche, but he is almost alone in honestly facing the consequences of living in a world in which everything is permitted. Most thinkers have sought to preserve some fragment of the intellectual structure that depended from the hypothesis of the Christian God, and so they appeal to reason or history or science. Nietzsche would have none of it. If the skies are really empty, then there are no imperatives. There is, however, life, which in the case of human beings expresses itself not just as biology but as the will. Now Nietzsche, unlike Schopenhauer and unlike many of his own followers, recognized the will is itself a composite entity. It is not a primary physical force, and it is not a god. It does, however, actually exist, and its exercise is all the meaning that life can ever have. Hm. Well, come to think of it, the exercise of the will **is** all the meaning that life can ever have. Not that that necessarily implies fascism; it is probably compatible with existentialism, or with Objectivism. > [@](#): > > The proposition that the meaning of life is the exercise of the will leads to two kinds of conclusions. The most obvious, and the most popular, is the cult of cruelty. Naturally, the street-fighters who normally figure in the public activities of successful fascist parties are rarely well-read in the literature of philosophical nihilism. Nevertheless, even the nihilist violence of the German SA and the Italian “squadristi” chimes with high theory. Fascism promotes ruthlessness for the same reason that it promotes conspiracy theories: for a fascist, nothing is going to happen unless some will makes it happen. One suspects this consideration is also a factor in the usual fascist suspicion of free markets. > > The other conclusion to which an ontology of the will leads is the transformation of politics into art. Whole societies become instruments for the expression of the will of elites, or often of a single great individual. In fascist theory, this is all that politics ever was, no matter what purportedly disinterested purposes the ruling elites of the past believed they served. The difference that Nietzsche made was that this reality could become conscious. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/42 "2013-11-27T05:26:13Z")
Note to reader: my credentials are I’ve taken a couple of introductory courses in philosophy and have done a little reading: in other words I have not credentials at all. > [@Subterraneanus](#): > > Russell took one idea–that philosophy is nothing but the conceptual analysis of logical content in Fregean terms–and then evaluates the history of philosophy according to how well he thinks its ideas approximate this conception, without articulating any real understanding of the ideas themselves. The book is one long advertisement for logical positivism. By mid-century, logical positivism as a complete bust, itself a vestige of religious thinking–in the form of the mythos of the logos. I didn’t know that Russell advocated logical positivism, and I thought that school petered out during the 1920s, while Russell still had philosophic cache during the 1950s. Also that the idea of verifiability was supplanted by Popper. I frankly don’t recall any of that discussion from Russell’s [_History_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_%28Russell%29). > [@](#): > > One possibility is to spend a lot of time with the _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_. Buy a set, if you can. **A Fine Whine** It’s $1350! It’s $250 used for an old edition! Admittedly _someone I know_ has it in .pdf (thanku internet), but I don’t like reading such things onscreen. It’s also 8-10 volumes long (as well as a very nice read, at least the parts I’ve dipped into). ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/43 "2013-11-27T15:17:23Z")
Oh crap! Years ago, I had a new set . . . and gave it away. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/44 "2013-11-27T15:28:15Z")
Ayn Rand explains a lot about our modern times. ---
**Author:** ![hapkido1996](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@hapkido1996](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hapkido1996)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/45 "2013-12-04T12:15:48Z")
Obscure, but Pyrrho of Elis and his unique brand of skepticism (as described and developed by his followers, such as Sextus Empiricus) speaks to me in a way that no other philosophy has to date. Adrian Kuzminski gives a good account of it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/46 "2013-12-04T15:01:47Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > Ayn Rand explains a lot . . . Yes, habitually. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/47 "2013-12-04T22:57:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Confucious, Laozi and the Buddha are worth reading because of the rising power and prominence of Asia. Tell you what- name me some of the texts written by the Buddha. I’ll wait… ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/48 "2013-12-04T23:06:22Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > IANAP, but this, to me, is why Nietzsche is so important not just in philosophy but for the whole post-modern era. IMO he pretty much de-throned rationalism as a singular guiding principle of ethics, society, culture, etc. Agree or disagree, he is a major figure worth at least approaching in order to understand our post-modern world. > . Ok, I’ll bite. How would we better understand our post modern world by reading Nietzsche (or any other philosopher)? I understand some people like to talk about stuff, but the OP was about _relevance_. And I’ll ask again with as little snark as I can muster up, what is relevant about what any philosopher has ever said to life in “our times?” ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/49 "2013-12-04T23:14:19Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Ok, I’ll bite. How would we better understand our post modern world by reading Nietzsche (or any other philosopher)? I understand some people like to talk about stuff, but the OP was about _relevance_. And I’ll ask again with as little snark as I can muster up, what is relevant about what any philosopher has ever said to life in “our times?” Perhaps understanding the evolution of thought allows us to better understand where are today, and where we will be tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/50 "2013-12-04T23:21:26Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Perhaps understanding the evolution of thought allows us to better understand where are today, and where we will be tomorrow. How so? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/51 "2013-12-05T04:26:05Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > How so? If you don’t believe it so, than what could I say to convince you? I for one do not allow my ego to proscribe willful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/52 "2013-12-05T05:25:01Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Tell you what- name me some of the texts written by the Buddha. > > I’ll wait… As it happens, a number of Buddhist texts quote the Buddha directly. In college I studied [_Buddhism in Translation_](http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Translations-Henry-Clark-Warren/dp/159605302X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386220746&sr=8-1&keywords=buddhism+in+translations) which gives some of the original source material. I was speaking loosely though. Given rising Asian power it wouldn’t hurt budding philosophers to familiarize themselves with the concepts of samsara, nirvana, dukkha, the 4 noble truths and the like. This wouldn’t be a bad place to start for those interested: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm) I always find The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy interesting or at least diverting: [Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=buddhism) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/53 "2013-12-05T05:39:38Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Ok, I’ll bite. How would we better understand our post modern world by reading Nietzsche (or any other philosopher)? I understand some people like to talk about stuff, but the OP was about _relevance_. And I’ll ask again with as little snark as I can muster up, what is relevant about what any philosopher has ever said to life in “our times?” If you want to understand the scientific method, it is useful to distinguish between falsifiability and verifiability. Karl Popper pointed this out. If you want to understand how scientists actually operate, you should have a sense of how overaching frameworks (or paradigms) tend to replace one another: they do not simply collapse due to new factual evidence. Thomas Kuhn pointed this out. If you want to grasp current understanding of consciousness, you must read some philosophical treatments. Those who like to conceptualize the role of government at an abstract level (I don’t) need to understand Hobbes, Locke and Rawls. If I were interested in the legitimacy of animal rights (I’m mostly not) Peter Singer is the go-to guy. That said, I have the sense that most working philosophers understand all too well that theirs is a niche field. But that’s a product of success. We don’t speak anymore of natural philosophers, ever since they branched off, specialized and called themselves scientists. Likewise I doubt whether philosophers will have much to say about consciousness in 400 years. ---
**Author:** ![hapkido1996](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@hapkido1996](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hapkido1996)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/54 "2013-12-05T11:21:57Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > As it happens, a number of Buddhist texts quote the Buddha directly. In college I studied [_Buddhism in Translation_](http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Translations-Henry-Clark-Warren/dp/159605302X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386220746&sr=8-1&keywords=buddhism+in+translations) which gives some of the original source material. > > I was speaking loosely though. Given rising Asian power it wouldn’t hurt budding philosophers to familiarize themselves with the concepts of samsara, nirvana, dukkha, the 4 noble truths and the like. > > This wouldn’t be a bad place to start for those interested: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm) > I always find The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy interesting or at least diverting: [Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=buddhism) My best guess is that he(?) was aiming at the fact that the Buddha didn’t write anything himself. The Pali suttas were memorized and only written down a couple of centuries later. As for me, I don’t take the Pali suttas as being historical documents. I suspect that they were mostly based on historical events that the Buddha formalized after the fact into a memorizable form. I’ve collected the entire Pali canon in hard copy, but you can get good online translations of many suttas at [www.accesstoinsight.org](http://www.accesstoinsight.org) for free. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/55 "2013-12-07T02:17:14Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I too would be interested in hearing our philosopher Dopers’ recommendations for good books on philosophy. > > It’s been a long time since I read it, but Will Durant’s [The Story of Philosophy](http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Philosophy-Opinions-Philosophers/dp/0671739166) seems pretty good, albeit incomplete and not modern. > > [Sophie’s World](http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-Jostein-Gaarder-ebook/dp/B00699SDR8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385407823&sr=1-1&keywords=sophie%27s+world) is an attempt to put philosophy and its history into the form of a novel and make it accessible to younger readers. I found it interesting, but I’d be interested in hearing a professional philosopher’s opinion. > > The Teaching Company (The Great Courses) and The Modern Scholar both have some good lecture series on philosophy (some general, some more specific). > [@Subterraneanus](#): > > Wiki is really not a bad place to start: [Logic - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) > > Flawed in several ways, but still worth reading: [Amazon.com: The Development of Logic: 9780198247739: Kneale, William, Kneale, Martha: Books](http://www.amazon.com/The-Development-Logic-William-Kneale/dp/0198247737) > > There is no one comprehensive guide. I would also add [A Short history of Phliosophy](http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Philosophy-Robert-Solomon/dp/0195101960) by Solomon and Higgins to this list. It is short, for one thing. It’s also very readable and accessible. Most importantly it addresses its subjects sympathetically and tries to explain what each of them were trying to do, rather than denounce them for not being Bertrand Russel. Russel is a good writer, but he is ridiculously tendentious. He should not be read as an introduction to philosophy and its history. He’s worth reading though, once you know when to roll your eyes. Another good book is Roger Scruton’s [Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey](http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Philosophy-An-Introduction-Survey/dp/0140249079). Scruton is an English Tory who often rails against rock and roll (Those damn kids!) and defends fox hunting (A Heritage of Tradition) which might make him anathema to a lot of people on this board. However he is a really good writer, knowledgeable about a lot of things, and a good teacher. His book analyzes a lot of post-Cartesian controversies in a friendly accessible way. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/56 "2013-12-07T03:16:33Z")
Thanks Larry Borgia. It looks like Roger Scruton’s book is well worth reading. I’m always interested in philosophy books that try to keep philosophy relevant. I liked Will Durant’s history of philosophy too, though the prose is a bit dated. davidmich ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/57 "2013-12-07T04:36:33Z")
No one mentioned Voltaire yet? ---
**Author:** ![Dostoyevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Dostoyevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dostoyevsky)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/58 "2013-12-07T21:28:14Z")
Not sure what the OP is looking for, but here goes nothing. Anything and everything can be found at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for free. It’s the largest and most used source of \*\*\*academic \*\*\*philosophy on line. A very, very short list follows: For ontology, read “On What There Is” by W.V.O. Quine and “On Denoting” by Bertrand Russell. These two dominate modern discussions on ontology. For philosophy of language, read Wittgenstein. Then read him again. ( 😃 ) For current philosophy of language, read Robert Brandom. (Brandom was recently awarded a $1.5 million dollar grant to stop teaching and just “think.” He’s \*that \*important.) For metaphysics, read debates between Peter van Inwagen and Peter Unger over “vagueness.” For philosophy of science, read Hilary Putnam and Daniel Dennett. (Also see Dennett for free will and philosophy of mind). For philosophy of religion and the ongoing debate over the problem of evil, read Alvin Plantinga and William Rowe. (Plantinga’s Christian: Rowe’s atheistic). Plantinga and Rowe are the two most influential voices left on this issue, and their disagreement couldn’t be starker. For ethics, read Russ Shafer-Landau and G. E. Moore for moral realism, Gilbert Harman for moral relativism, R. M. Hare for noncognitivism, and J. L. Mackie for moral skepticism. (If you only read two of those, read Mackie and Moore… not because they’re right, but because _ **ALL** _ ongoing debates in ethics are over their work.) For epistemology, read Harman and Plantinga again. For political philosophy, read Rawls, Nozick, and Sandel. That’s my list. Feel free to take shots at it for its many omissions of equally important philosophers. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/59 "2013-12-07T21:29:20Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > No one mentioned Voltaire yet? His victory was so complete that he has become irrelevant. Who wants to read books inveighing against things that no longer exist? ---
**Author:** ![Dostoyevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Dostoyevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dostoyevsky)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701/60 "2013-12-07T21:40:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > His victory was so complete that he has become irrelevant. Who wants to read books inveighing against things that no longer exist? I’m pretty Jews still exist, despite what was likely his strong preference to the contrary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophers-both-classical-and-modern-still-speak-to-our-times/674701.md?page=4)