Taught by the famous philosophers.

[Victor Eremita]

Looking at three or four "greatest philosophers" books, a handful of contemporary philosophers have made it into a book that also includes Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant.

The Great Philosophers: Ted Honderich
The Great Philosophers: Jeremy Stangroom
Philosophy - 100 Essential Thinkers: Phillip Stokes
One Hundred Philosophers: Peter J. King
and others.

The following philosophers have lived within 20 years of 2008 (since 1988):
W. V. O. Quine (d. 2000)
Richard Rorty (d. 2007)
Gilles Deleuze (d. 1995)
Peter Singer (alive)
Saul Kripke (alive)
Jacques Derrida (d. 2004)
Thomas Kuhn (d. 1996)
Karl Popper (d. 1994)
Alfred Jules Ayer (d. 1989)
R. M. Hare (d. 2002)
Jean-François Lyotard (d. 1998)
John Searle (alive)
John Rawls (d. 2002)
Louis Althusser (d. 1990)

The question is: how many of you guys, has had one of these philosophers as your professor, especially as undergraduate? Was there a sense of history being made in the room; like if you were a pupil being lectured by Kant or Hegel?

Or was it just same ol', same ol', like the professor made the midterm too hard and he promised to make the final easier?

[VideCorSpoon]

I was able to take a few classes with Jitendranath Mohanty before he retired. He is widely regarded as one of the leading minds in Indian Philosophy. He is also very respected in german philosophy as I understand it.

I cant say how much I loved his classes, especially his classical Indian philosophy class. Kinda like story time... but for metaphysics. Very pleasant and knowledgeable. Veteran professors tend to have a better bedside manner than the rest, but his teaching method is phenomenal and his approach is one I have tried to emulate.

[johncee]

I do not understand why the writer places some of the names he mentions on the same plane as Aristotle and Plato. After all they were outstanding thinkers whose relevance and importance has endured long after their age. Giving us new understanding of the world. After all, when some of the writers you cite actually attack and undermine the most basic premise and foundation of philosophy which has been built on historically - and that is truth.

Writers of the postmodernist school (I’ll refer to them as posties) put forward “that we cannot know truth.” Some of these ‘posties’ are actually revered and elevated to prominence as theoreticians and thinkers in the universities by academics - who really should know better.
I would argue that the “posties” are so thick that they do not think their ideas through in the light of critical reasoning: Of course, that would immediately contradict their basic premise “that we cannot know the truth.” Nor does it bother them that they write books, but what then is the thrust and substance they are building upon “if you cannot know the truth.”

When confronted with their howling inconsistencies they start ducking and weaving, then backpedal claiming “we can only know subjective truths." Apparently there is no objective reality that happens outside of our heads, nor can billions of people know that objective reality. Which is comprised and made up of objective truths verified historically including the underlying components of matter such as molecules and atoms which are subject to objective laws. Then there is the field of mathematics, which too, is not subjective. Then there is history which happened before our age such as Napolean dying in 1821 objectively true and can be objectively proved. Another howling idiocy of postmodernism is that classic “the sign is the signifier if it is signified." Their claim that they are modern (postmodern) is spurious for when they attack the truth they are reactionary essentially conservative, a school of thought against the idea of a comprehensible objective reality and the introduction of relativism into every field of thought and science.

But for all the ‘posties’ pretensions and they are not shy, none speaks louder than they have yet to show us new knowledge – new understanding from new insights about the world from their so called philosophy. They are actually relativists that have brought forward a revival of obscurantism.
Man is a part of nature, its highest product. "Life gives rise to the brain, " the socialist writer Lenin writes. "Nature is reflected in the human brain. By checking and applying the correctness of these reflections in his practice and technique, man arrives at objective truth" ( Philosophical Notebooks, page 201).
.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by johncee

I do not understand why the writer places some of the names he mentions on the same plane as Aristotle and Plato. After all they were outstanding thinkers whose relevance and importance has endured long after their age. Giving us new understanding of the world. After all, when some of the writers you cite actually attack and undermine the most basic premise and foundation of philosophy which has been built on historically - and that is truth.

Writers of the postmodernist school (I’ll refer to them as posties) put forward “that we cannot know truth.” Some of these ‘posties’ are actually revered and elevated to prominence as theoreticians and thinkers in the universities by academics - who really should know better.
I would argue that the “posties” are so thick that they do not think their ideas through in the light of critical reasoning: Of course, that would immediately contradict their basic premise “that we cannot know the truth.” Nor does it bother them that they write books, but what then is the thrust and substance they are building upon “if you cannot know the truth.”

When confronted with their howling inconsistencies they start ducking and weaving, then backpedal claiming “we can only know subjective truths." Apparently there is no objective reality that happens outside of our heads, nor can billions of people know that objective reality. Which is comprised and made up of objective truths verified historically including the underlying components of matter such as molecules and atoms which are subject to objective laws. Then there is the field of mathematics, which too, is not subjective. Then there is history which happened before our age such as Napolean dying in 1821 objectively true and can be objectively proved. Another howling idiocy of postmodernism is that classic “the sign is the signifier if it is signified." Their claim that they are modern (postmodern) is spurious for when they attack the truth they are reactionary essentially conservative, a school of thought against the idea of a comprehensible objective reality and the introduction of relativism into every field of thought and science.

But for all the ‘posties’ pretensions and they are not shy, none speaks louder than they have yet to show us new knowledge – new understanding from new insights about the world from their so called philosophy. They are actually relativists that have brought forward a revival of obscurantism.
Man is a part of nature, its highest product. "Life gives rise to the brain, " the socialist writer Lenin writes. "Nature is reflected in the human brain. By checking and applying the correctness of these reflections in his practice and technique, man arrives at objective truth" ( Philosophical Notebooks, page 201).
.

Sorry Lenin. There is no objective truth. There is truth as a form of relationship. There is truth as a practical measure of our forms. There is truth as life, which as all meaning is all truth. But there is no truth that can be distilled out of so much reality. It is a moral reality and a moral form. It is not real, exactly. It is all meaning and no being. So, Lenin, though you were often right, in this you are wrong.

[Resha Caner]

Sigh.

The original question was an interesting one, and I'd like to hear the answers people have. It's sort of an "Erdos Number" question. If someone on this board took lessons directly from Popper or Kuhn, I'd be fascinated to hear about it.

So, though I am sympathetic to what johncee is saying, it is trolling (or baiting or pontificating or whatever word you want to use) in the worst way. It would be better to use a separate thread and link to this one.

But, Fido's reply isn't much better. Such absolute statements ("there is no objective truth") cannot be made by anyone other than an omniscent being. And, the "even if it exists, it's irrelevant because I can't know it" line of defense doesn't work. If objective truth exists, it certainly is relevant.

But, here is my plea: can we focus on the original question?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

Sigh.

The original question was an interesting one, and I'd like to hear the answers people have. It's sort of an "Erdos Number" question. If someone on this board took lessons directly from Popper or Kuhn, I'd be fascinated to hear about it.

So, though I am sympathetic to what johncee is saying, it is trolling (or baiting or pontificating or whatever word you want to use) in the worst way. It would be better to use a separate thread and link to this one.

But, Fido's reply isn't much better. Such absolute statements ("there is no objective truth") cannot be made by anyone other than an omniscent being. And, the "even if it exists, it's irrelevant because I can't know it" line of defense doesn't work. If objective truth exists, it certainly is relevant.

But, here is my plea: can we focus on the original question?

Well great, If you think there is some objective truth, just try to prove it. What is obvious is that the objective seeming truth we have is only that because it is socially accepted. Objective truth, to be true would have to be true yesterday, today, tomorrow, and for all time; and we can see that time changes everything. Then, truth would have to be true for some one, and no one can show anyone who lives beyond their life, so their truth is limited to their life. I don't know about infinites, but I do know that the truth only has use because it is a form of relationship. Stop. In that it is no different from any other form. Except, that we can measure forms against truth. If a roof as a reality is measured against a roof as a form, it has to keep out the rain on both ends. How do we measure truth against truth? Do we turn the abstraction of truth inside out? Do we abstract the abstraction of truth once again? Do that enough, and the whole form become meaningless. Is that what you want, or do you want to state the obvious truth that there is no objective truth. Truth as a form is already an absolute, as every form is an absolute. But in reproducing reality from the model of our forms, we must accept a loss of perfection. Then it becomes a question of what loss of perfection from the absolute to the real we are willing to socially accept as truth. So what are you prepared to prove? Thanks... Fido

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I'm taking my own advice

... so follow the link.

[VideCorSpoon]

Not to be harsh, but I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of both johncee and Fido's statements in regards to this thread. Its kinda random, no? Isn't the topic of the thread on "who had experienced known philosophers?"

[Holiday20310401]

I haven't met anybody

[Victor Eremita]

I attended a lecture by John Searle once, shook the guy's hand even. It was on language and social ontology.

Although it was devoid of the "Big Questions of Life" feel I'd expect from a guy like Kierkegaard, it was a pretty interesting talk on declarative statments and the formation of society.

For example, the declarative statement, "I declare this meeting to be over", does not have any provable truth values, other than the fact that one has declared it; and once it has been done, it is so. Searle says all human institutions, World Bank, legal tender, government, are formed by declarations.

And they continue to exist because of "continual status functions"; money continues to be "legal tender" long after the declaration by the Bank, because of the human institutional reality and unifying principle. (what that is I have no clue because he then went into JL Austin's work on linguistics)