No surprises here

[firecat]

Taboo quiz (via elynne)
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Comments

Re: Philosophy?

[tedesson.livejournal.com]

That's a tough question, I'll see if I can come up with a good answer.

Ancient: Heraclitus (All is flux), Aristotle (Experiments can teach us things. The good life is striving towards excellence.)

17c European: Spinoza (All matter participates equally in all properties of matter, including mind.) This is a response to Decartes, who said that there are two different types of things, insensible matter, and mind matter (they communicate by wiggling the pitutary gland). Spinoza said that's wrong. Decartes is the most wrong of all philosophers, and did the most intellecutal damage. Good math, though.

19C European: Nietzsche (God is dead.) Frege (Philosophy is as logical as mathematics.)

20C European: Russell (The linguistic turn.) The problems of philosophy are more difficult that we think because they are described in natural langage which we don't understand clearly. Wittgenstein (We think in models. What we can't talk about we must pass over in silence.) Goedel (Any system contains theorems which cannot be proven true or false within the system.) Foucault (Power is a critical factor in constucting systems of knowledge.)

The philosopher I think of most often, and read for fun is Nietzsche. (Robert Solomon's books on him are wonderful.) I gave many of the contemporary French philosophers (Lacan and his followers) a good try, and I think I understand them, but I'm not sure I do.

These days, I'm reading a lot of Buddhist writings, particularly Pema Chodron.

Re: Philosophy?

[firecat]

That's a great answer.

I've never read much Nietzsche. I certainly never understood Lacan, etc., either. But I once received a letter from Jacques Derrida.

I've been reading Western takes on Buddhism for a long time. I was assigned a Chodron book for a writing class once, but I think I couldn't find a copy.