List the ideas like you said or fail, that's your issue and I don't care because I never thought it was plausible.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:24 amIt seems your best moves is to complain about nothing.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:00 amThat's not a list of ideas, it's a list of philosophers. Frege only gets described as "Influential analytic philosopher"Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:24 am
Here it is, the ideas as related to the list of philosophers;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ilosophers
If you have read widely you would have understand what each of the majority of philosopher's ideas are.
It doesn't even list Berlin. It's not what you were offering, you have tried a bait and switch on me.See the other thread. You know the one.... The one where we were checking your ability to read and it hasn't gone well for you.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:24 am One of the first book I read of Western Philosophy was Russell's
History of Western Philosophy.
So far, I have >18,000 files [books, articles and notes] in my Philosophy Folder with >1000 subfolders [with some duplications]. My Kant folder has 4300 files in 200 subfolders which signify the high weightage I placed on Kantianism.
The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is. Again, this is another of your boasts that makes no sense to anyone else, and it's not coincidental that what you boast of is a pointless excess of organisation and sorting.
Of course I don't have such a fodler. If you think I am going to make up numbers for weighting Adam Smith against John Stuart Mill you must have lost your goddamn mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:24 am So, which are the philosophers and their ideas you align with the most with its relevant weightages [note the useful of weightages you condemned]?
If you have a 'Philosophy' folder in your hard-disk you may be able to infer from there.
If you have read enough philosophical books you would have noted in some there is a long list of references and this is not a sign of boasting.
You can't read properly. Listing books you have failed to read is a waste of effort. The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is.
You don't even understand the books you say you have 'read', probably because of this speed reading technique you use which obviously prioritises speed over read.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:24 am I believe in a philosophy forum it is effective to know what others have read which will facilitate a smoother discussion.
This is why I need to know your philosophical stance in detail but you are such a coward in revealing all your moves to avoid being 'checkmate'.
Scruton is on the list. Berlin is massively more important than that chump. I'v read both, you've read nothing. Your opinion is uneducated drivel.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:24 am Berlin??Perhaps the above is the reason he was not listed.Berlin did not enjoy writing, and his published work (including both his essays and books) was produced through dictation to a tape-recorder, or by the transcription of his improvised lectures and talks from recorded tapes.
-WIKI
It is likely he is a second tier or grade philosopher with no novel ideas.