Kierkegaard or Nietzsche?

[Seizing]

What I Love about Nietzsche's Zarathustra is that nothing makes sense, but there's a lot of apples to take!

Why you might say? Because he's hostile to the spirit of gravity, a worldview where all things fall.
The other German has a very harmonious acceptance of life with his knight of Faith, whereas Nietzsche is a "Revolutionary"!

[DesolationRow]

^Hmm Kierkegaard was Danish. If he had been German, Nietzsche would have certainly read his works. They were just being translated into other European languages when N's mind collapsed.

[David Handeye]

Sure Nietzsche was a philosopher? Did he ever write some of ontology? Logic? Gnoseology? Metaphysics? One who confuses christianity with catholicism could ever be a philosopher?

[DesolationRow]

Sure Nietzsche was a philosopher? Did he ever write some of ontology? Logic? Gnoseology? Metaphysics?

Nietzsche was an anti-foundationalist. He understood well those branches of philosophy. He questioned the value of pursuing abstract principles, remote from human life and experience. He encouraged these pursuits only so far as they contributed to life, and beyond that was an indecent route for philosophy.

[David Handeye]

I think questioning the value of pursuing is different from questioning abstract principles. A real philosopher doesn't make a trial of intentions, he argues with contents. The only one who questioned the value of abstract principles was Kant, but Kant was a philosopher, and he provided a system of thought organic, not improvised aphorisms.

[DesolationRow]

Yes. I agree with the distinction. However, taking a different approach in philosophical discourse doesn't make one 'not a philosopher.' Whatever your definition of "real philosopher," it likely emerges from a specific paradigm.

[David Handeye]

Yes. I agree with the distinction. However, taking a different approach in philosophical discourse doesn't make one 'not a philosopher.' Whatever your definition of "real philosopher," it likely emerges from a specific paradigm.

so, who is a philosopher in your opinion? when you could have been called "philosopher"? what makes it?

[DesolationRow]

I think anyone who examines the world and then makes inferences about what they encounter can be called a philosopher. Their rhetoric would probably also include some kind of persuasion or suggestion to others about how to interpret the world/their lives. And while it would certainly be a stretch to consider someone sitting at home with no writings a philosopher, it's not impossible. And Nietzsche with his enormous output, clearly, is a philosopher. I think I have consensus on my side here, as the wikipedia page for "Philosopher" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher has Nietzsche's picture at the top.

I understand your point that N. was not a system-builder. That is quite true and a lot academics disregard his works for that reason.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Yes. I agree with the distinction. However, taking a different approach in philosophical discourse doesn't make one 'not a philosopher.' Whatever your definition of "real philosopher," it likely emerges from a specific paradigm.

so, who is a philosopher in your opinion? when you could have been called "philosopher"? what makes it?

Apparently someone with a lot of hype and someone scrubs like to quote to make themself sound smarter. Real philosophers may quote them too and agree with some ideals, but the difference is scrubs just parrots never actually put forth anything original on their own, they treat their heroes like the gospel guidelines, the standard that they think everyone should live by

In the future books will be dead, there will be no more famous philosophers. Everyone will be a conglomerate of 2 cent opinions. Even the famous ones like PewdiePie's voices will not be heard, PewdiePie will say "FlappyBirds is the worst game ever, don't play it" and the sheep will say "Did you watch PewdiePie last night? He said Flappybirds is a game we must play! Let's play it!"

There is no hope, in a couple of decades Oprah, AmazingAtheist and Dr. Oz will be hailed as the greatest philosophers of their time

[David Handeye]

I think anyone who examines the world and then makes inferences about what they encounter can be called a philosopher. Their rhetoric would probably also include some kind of persuasion or suggestion to others about how to interpret the world/their lives. And while it would certainly be a stretch to consider someone sitting at home with no writings a philosopher, it's not impossible. And Nietzsche with his enormous output, clearly, is a philosopher. I think I have consensus on my side here, as the wikipedia page for "Philosopher" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher has Nietzsche's picture at the top.

I understand your point that N. was not a system-builder. That is quite true and a lot academics disregard his works for that reason.

Thank you for your answer, Des. I see, but don't agree. Even my cat examines the world and makes inferences about what it encounter. I think what is important is making the right questions, not (only) giving answers. Bye.

[Breath]

Yes. I agree with the distinction. However, taking a different approach in philosophical discourse doesn't make one 'not a philosopher.' Whatever your definition of "real philosopher," it likely emerges from a specific paradigm.

so, who is a philosopher in your opinion? when you could have been called "philosopher"? what makes it?

A philosopher in my books is a practical ethicist. Everyone is a practical ethicist, to the extent that they select what not to do.

While every human being who selects their acts is therefore a philosopher, not everyone is necessarily a good philosopher.

A good philosopher is one whose life is worth reliving -again and again if need be.

[DesolationRow]

While every human being who selects their acts is therefore a philosopher, not everyone is necessarily a good philosopher.

Precisely

[David Handeye]

Yes. I agree with the distinction. However, taking a different approach in philosophical discourse doesn't make one 'not a philosopher.' Whatever your definition of "real philosopher," it likely emerges from a specific paradigm.

so, who is a philosopher in your opinion? when you could have been called "philosopher"? what makes it?

A philosopher in my books is a practical ethicist. Everyone is a practical ethicist, to the extent that they select what not to do.

While every human being who selects their acts is therefore a philosopher, not everyone is necessarily a good philosopher.

A good philosopher is one whose life is worth reliving -again and again if need be.

Hi Breath,
I don't agree, selecting what not to do does not necessarily implies acting;
secondly, I could act even knowing what I am doing is not to do.

One of the greatest philosopher of history, Jean Jacques Rousseau, converted to catholicism even knowing he was doing something not to do.

[HexHammer]

Which philosopher took a more profound view of the self? Which is more influential? And which is more important for the life of an individual in the 21st century?

Neither has any relevance in modern society, as they are severely outdated. Just forget about them.

Many will swear to Nietz, but they can never give any examples of his relevance ..yearh, not so bright people.

[Arising_uk]

In the future books will be dead, there will be no more famous philosophers. Everyone will be a conglomerate of 2 cent opinions. Even the famous ones like PewdiePie's voices will not be heard, PewdiePie will say "FlappyBirds is the worst game ever, don't play it" and the sheep will say "Did you watch PewdiePie last night? He said Flappybirds is a game we must play! Let's play it!"

Who's this PewdiePie?

In the future books will still be books and most will still never have heard of the famous philosophers.

There is no hope, in a couple of decades Oprah, AmazingAtheist and Dr. Oz will be hailed as the greatest philosophers of their time

Only heard of one of these and I doubt she'll be remembered much after her show goes off-air. No-eyed deer who the other two are?