• R-13
    83
    In your opinion, who gets more play than they deserve? Or, more generously, which philosophers, despite their fame, do you fail to find much use for?

    I pick Heidegger. I don't claim that his work is empty. I have enjoyed various interpretations of his work, and I recently read through most of his Introduction to Metaphysics. I also have a translation of Being and Time which I'd call some of the ugliest prose in the English language. I have found some pdfs written by Sheehan that I can enjoy, but even these don't exactly blow me away. If he really is one of the greats of the 20th century, then maybe the 20th century is a weak period --though I do like Wittgenstein. (One could argue that philosophy for the non-specialist peaked a little after Hegel.) Finally, we are talking about a passionate Nazi. I'm aware of the usual spiel that this is separate from the work, but I don't buy it. Of course I'm not an expert. But then why would someone bother to become an expert on a thinker who turns them off?
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    No, please, don't make me say it again today....... >:O
  • Buxtebuddha
    1.7k
    Agustino for the most underrated philosopher...for good reason, too...

    giphy.gif
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    Ayn Rand...though I am not sure she even counts.
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    Is tonight star trek meme night at TPF?
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Bruv, but I'm already rated highly, I'm your favorite already!
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I can't pick just one. I'd say these, though: Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida. If not the most overrated, then certainly these are the most irritating, to me at least.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Karl Marx
  • MindForged
    731
    Plato. Especially if you take the old Whitehead "footnote to Plato" quote seriously. In terms of modern philosophical discourse, I don't much see the point in being overly interested in what Plato had to say about some topic.
  • Erik
    605
    I don't think Heidegger is overrated at all. The radical new understanding of human existence he articulates in B&T makes it one of the most insightful and revolutionary philosophical works I've ever read. And the results of this work of fundamental ontology have relevance for a wide variety of important topics, such as art, technology, and theology to name a few.

    So in what will surely draw the ire of his horde of detractors, I would put it him up there with the all-time 'greats' - far superior IMO to Nietzsche (whom I also appreciate) in many ways - and this despite his horrendous political decision. I do occasionally wish he would have omitted some of the extraneous and unnecessary aspects of his writing style, but at other times I appreciate the entire 'production' he puts forward in dramatic fashion. His writing can be mesmerizing once you have a decent grasp of his terminology, especially the 'later' stuff. At least I find it so.

    Just my opinion. I'll be glad to discuss further with anyone who's actually made a legitimate attempt to read and understand him. I totally get the reason(s) why people don't generally like him upon initial reading, largely due to his near impenetrable use of language. It's also hard to look beyond his Nazi past, which is understandable.
  • The Great Whatever
    2.2k
    The more you study a subject, the less important any individual figure seems. There aren't great philosophers, and thinking there are just means you haven't read enough. *shrug*
  • ThePhilosopherFromDixie
    31
    Renee Descartes.

    The dude was a complete amateur. He did his [equivalent of] undergraduate in philosophy with the Jesuits, subsequently forgot everything, and then started asking advice for some anthologies to get him "up to speed" on philosophy again.

    He was an amateur. The modern philosophical period is a PERIOD of amateurs up until Kant, and shame on him for basing his academic philosophy on the work of amateurs.

    Dishonor. Dishonor on them. Dishonor on their whole families. Dishonor on their cows.
  • ThePhilosopherFromDixie
    31


    The "footnote to Plato" thing is mostly accurate, though, at least if we're talking about philosophy posterior to Plato and prior to Descartes. The entire period was basically one giant debate between Plato and Aristotle. Throw in some materialism here. Remove materialism, and replace with some Islam there. Replace Islam with some Christianity there...

    ...You get the idea.

    And yeah. That's basically philosophy before Descartes. And even after Descartes, there's pretty heavy Platonic influence.

    Either way, I think that two things are happening:

    1. You are grossly underestimating Plato, mainly because you've probably only read him through modern lenses. Jonathan Barnes and Proclus are not equal interpreters of Plato and Aristotle. Just saying.

    2. You are grossly overestimating modern thought and methods.
  • mosesquine
    95
    The most over-rated philosophers are three philosophers: Plotinus, Malebranche, Berkeley.
    It seems that Plotinus is not similar to Plato. I don't think that Plotinus is a platonist at all.
    Malebranche is worse than Descartes. Malebranche's metaphysics is the composed volume of falsity.
    Berkeley was defeated by G. E. Moore. Many people hate idealism.
  • MindForged
    731
    The "footnote to Plato" thing is mostly accurate, though, at least if we're talking about philosophy posterior to Plato and prior to Descartes

    Well so far as I know, Whitehead (from whom the quote originates) was presumably talking about philosophy writ large, not the period between Plato & Descartes. My claim was *never* that there wasn't a clear Platonic influence on (Western) philosophy. It was that Plato is, in my opinion, overrated and that Whitehead's statement should not be taken as being literally true, nor accurate.

    1. You are grossly underestimating Plato, mainly because you've probably only read him through modern lenses. Jonathan Barnes and Proclus are not equal interpreters of Plato and Aristotle. Just saying.

    2. You are grossly overestimating modern thought and methods.

    Well I don't see how I'm underestimating Plato, seeing as my only contention thus far was that the idea that philosophy is but "a footnote to Plato" is just silly.

    I think modern thought and methods have, on the whole and quite expectedly, surpassed Plato (and Aristotle) long ago. And by such (echoing another comment), I mean that the diversity, exposition & investigation of virtually all philosophical questions has far surpassed anything that Plato could have imagined. To argue otherwise is to, I think, place certain figures on pedestals that make little sense, and which devalues the actual discourse amongst philosophers. Something which naturally tends to be more fruitful than pinning a single person (or 2) as the eternal master of a discipline. And all of that is to ignore the ridiculous eurocentrism this blog view is predicated on.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and DerridaThorongil
    I'm not so sure - there's probably more good ideas in Nietzsche than in all the other 4 combined :P
  • Michael
    14k
    Berkeley was defeated by G. E. Moore.mosesquine

    With his "here is a hand" argument?
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    With his "here is a hand" argument?Michael
    Yeah, with the here is a mental hand, and here is another mental hand - thus there are two mental hands, and therefore there is no external world! >:O
  • Michael
    14k
    Yeah, with the here is a mental hand, and here is another mental hand - thus there are two mental hands, and therefore there is no external world!Agustino

    I know this is a joke, but the conclusion doesn't follow. ;)
  • mosesquine
    95

    With his 'The Refutation of Idealism'.
  • mosesquine
    95
    Moore says that Berkeley did not tell objects from perceptions of objects.
  • Ying
    397
    Most overrated philosopher? Mencius. That guy is ass.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Xunzi the real stud, amirite?
  • Ying
    397
    I'm not very fond of confucianism in general. Besides, I don't think Confucius was a confucianist. Dude was into Chinese naturalism. His "Analects" take on a different meaning if you're familiar with the "I Ching".
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    Every contintental philosopher who is well-regarded. I'd include Kant in that by the way.

    Aside from that, Wittgenstein is a good choice, especially as he's been so influential to 20th century philosophy.

    Aristotle to an extent. He deserves credit for being so (relatively) systematic, prolific and comprehensive, but his conclusions are mostly wrong and his writing is very awkward.

    I'd also say Aquinas, although I can understand his popularity as he's basically Aristotle for uber-religious folks. Historically, there's no one else who can compare with him for that niche.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Aside from that, Wittgenstein is a good choice, especially as he's been so influential to 20th century philosophy.Terrapin Station

    Is the valence of this statement in the positive or negative. Can't tell.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    If I think he's a good choice, in the context of this thread, I'm saying that he's a good choice for "most overrated."
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.