Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yup, these two too. But Socrates is even worse, I hate his lectures. Yuk!I definitely think Kant and Foucault are worse.
He takes his assumptions for granted and then does ridiculous dialogues.What's the problem with Socrates? Please elaborate...
I see him as a demented clown.I can think of Nietzsche,
He takes his assumptions for granted and then does ridiculous dialogues.
His method was maieutics. Very sneaky and appauling. Socrates drive the dialogue with maieutics and claimed the reasult was the person's and not socrates' doing. What a horrible CONARTIST.The dialogues were a literary device, apparently invented by Plato to showcase Socrates' method of reasoning.
Brainwash stood time.The fact that it is accessible to the modern reader, suggests it's been a successful device, which has stood the test of time rather well.
SOCRATES.
There is nothing good with. By far horrible.
Socrates (like Jesus and the Buddha) never wrote anything down though, did he? So we have to rely on his followers to recount his message.
I'd agree that Socrates' philosophy is nowhere near as clear or accessible, nor as elegant, as the messages of both Jesus and the Buddha.
Thank you. The teachings make me furious, not the Historical Figures. Socrates Jesus and Buddha are judged for their work indirectly I agree, but the historical actual persons are a bit unimportant. The teachings make me furious.That would be Plato then (Socrates is his philosophical character).
I've heard that hypothesis and I have to say it is possible. But even then is it OK to talk about Socrates, his method and his philosophy. We have those through Plato it changes nothing if Socrates was real or imagined.That would be Plato then (Socrates is his philosophical character).
That would be Plato then (Socrates is his philosophical character). But I disagree!
I’d say Sartre. Because -although absolutely fascinating- not only was he insanely long-winded, but also a master at expressing his ideas in the most incomprehensible of ways.
Humbly
Hermit
I read La Nausea about 40 years ago, my God it was depressing. I wonder was Sartre in fact clinically depressed when he wrote it? In fact, is existentialism really depression expressed as a philosophy?
Camus' L'Etranger is not so easily dismissed though, tbf.