10 Answers

  1. Thinking is not a bath tub to turn over. Philosophers offer certain, sometimes partially overlapping, models of interpretation. Some of these models may complement each other, some may contradict each other, but few people subscribe to the entire model in its entirety and without reservations.

    Therefore, it is more accurate to talk about certain aspects of a particular model of a particular philosopher. In no particular order:

    * Wittgenstein is probably the main influence, not only for the philosophy of language, but also for the fact that non-linguistic phenomena (religious, cognitive, metaphysical) can still be considered in a Wittgensteinian way.

    • Other philosophers, anthropologists, hermeneutists and literary theorists who worked with language: Saussure, Gadamer, Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Russian formalists, etc. Not always for specific models, but at least for all this gigadiscourse in which the conversation about the language exists today.

    * Modern ontologists-Morton, Harman, posthumanists. In general, a flat ontology is close to me, at least as a starting model, and it adapts extremely well to poetic needs.

    Descartes as a historical phenomenon, which is convenient to argue about, and especially in everything that concerns the other part of my work, with landscape theory, photography and artistic naturalism.

    * Kant, Burke, and McIntyre — for contributions to ethics and aesthetics, which I strongly disagree with. Berkov's dichotomy of the beautiful and the sublime now seems somewhat naive, but it is one of those ideas that you can not get rid of later. Well, I also follow the current branches in evolutionary and neuroaesthetics, but they are still difficult to take seriously.

    * Seneca — It's not that I've ever actively dug up the Stoics, but it's just that over time, I'm constantly mentally convinced that he's right.

    * Speaking of antiquity, Plato and Aristotle perfectly demonstrate why philosophy should be read in primary sources, and to what extent the form of its writing is inseparable from the provisions. Socrates in the retelling looks like abstract theorizing, which no one asked about. Socrates becomes the Athenian gadfly only in the dialogue itself.

    Many phenomena such as Zen patriarchs, church fathers, and Inuit shamans are excluded from this list, not for lack of influence, but only because they are not strictly related to philosophy.

  2. Of the philosophers in the special (having a “diploma”) – no one. But among those who are called psychologists – L. S. Vygotsky. This undervalued scientist in the world (including in Russia) is better called a thinker, because, in my opinion, he tried to change our ideas not only about man, but also about science, and even tried to change the worldview of people. His ideas about the units of psychological analysis, his theory of speech thinking, and his attempt to outline the foundations of a psychological theory of meaning personally aroused my enthusiasm and exaltation at one time (about 50 years ago). At that time, I thought: well, in half a century they will start talking about Vygotsky… Indeed, they say. But his highest achievement in academic circles, for some reason, is considered to be the theory of higher mental functions and the development of the problem of interiorization. I have already mentioned several areas that Vygotsky developed. Others could be named. And all this in 10 years. He died in 1934, at the age of 38. In comparison, for example, with the great Swiss psychologist J.Piaget, or the founder of psychology, W. Wundt. The merits of these famous people do not outweigh the achievements of Vygotsky, although they were engaged in science for 60 years. So, Vygotsky, definitely.

  3. Jesus Christ. I have never seen a more complete and explanatory picture of the world and the interaction of the world and out-of-the-world. His recorded words are few and far between, just a few pages long, but their depth is astounding.

  4. I've read a lot since I was a child, and I think that every writer is a philosopher. And you realize, the more you do it, the more you realize that you don't know anything, but you read it anyway. When I was doing yoga, I started to get interested in the philosophy of Yogis and their statements, and later I got acquainted with Buddhism and it fascinated me. But the real thing that really turned my thinking around was Taoism. Lao Tzu's only work, the Daode Ching, although written 2600 years ago, is still relevant. I really like the philosophy of the East, it provides answers to all the questions of our time, and if you want to learn the future, study Kabbalah. With respect.

  5. Socrates and Confucius (and similar other thinkers) convincingly proved that a philosopher / thinker can be not only useless and even very harmful empty-minded (a very mass phenomenon), but also a Good Genius who is very productive and saving for a degraded civilization.

  6. Having formulated the Laws of dialectics, Hegel was the first to indicate the direction of philosophy in the direction of scientific knowledge. Well, that's it… Further, the General theory of systems as a scientific philosophical theory. But things are moving rather slowly here. It requires a genius corresponding to the genius of Hegel. I'd do it, but I don't have much time left – I need to leave it to my grandchildren and granddaughters.

  7. Hegel. But not because of the power of his philosophy, although of course he is a great philosopher, but because of the circumstances. At that time, I was a physics student and was trying to find hints in philosophy for a new language of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Diamat turned out to be useless in this matter and I turned to its primary sources. After reading Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, I stopped being a materialist. But it was not his philosophy that made the revolution, but my first acquaintance with real philosophy in his person. Yes, and the coup was not so significant, then they were much steeper. Just a question about philosophers, and then philosophy for me eclipsed physics.

  8. Mahatmas, as they are commonly called by theosophists, or Teachers of humanity, are able to direct thinking in a direction that expands the worldview and aspires to knowledge.

    I include Plato among them.

  9. I don't know if I turned it around, but for me, the most thought-generating philosopher at the moment is Hannah Arendt. The palette of her arguments is quite wide, but in my opinion, some works “flow” very well into others, that is, when you finish reading one, you see the continuation or deepening of the prescribed thoughts in the following works. Plus, in my opinion, very relevant arguments about power, ideology, subordination, moral responsibility for actions, emotional and rational. Plus-now it is well translated, a lot, which is also important.

  10. Plato. When I was 14 or 15, I read his Dialogues and was, to put it mildly, shocked. How flat and, sorry, perversely the great philosopher saw the world. And it became clear to me that there are no authorities, that my opinion is important, and not someone else's, even if it is officially significant.

Leave a Reply