What is your favourite period in philosophy?

philologos

Philosophy itself is a rather big subject if one thinks about it. There are numerous different schools, different types, and philosophical periods. Generally in philosophy, although all periods can be used to contribute to an argument for one position often people specialise in one or more periods of philosophy that they find interesting.

From what I have read from this forum a lot of people seem to like the modern age coming after Descartes, Locke, Hume and so on. I personally find this interesting to a certain degree largely due to the question of epistemology. Can we know things innately, or do we know things only by sense perception (Esse est percipi in the logic of George Berkeley).

My personal favourite age of philosophy is the Medieval Age, which I think gets a bad rap for being called the Dark Ages since so much valuable philosophy was given to the world during that time, particularly through Augustine (His theory of knowledge is fascinating), Thomas Aquinas, and the Islamic thinkers such as Avicenna (Ibn Sena) and Avveroes (Ibn Rushd), and Moses Maimonides a Jewish rabbinical thinker, and the impact of the former Greeks and Classics to their philosophy as Aristotle was made available to the modern world again. I studied a whole module on this last Semester at university and found it fascinating in comparison to the modern philosophy (which although is interesting, tends to be the main focus of university philosophy).

What about ye? Tell us about your favourite age of philosophy - Poll coming, apologies for any inaccuracies that may be contained. I've included Eastern as a separate category as there has been little contact between it and the Western world.

Cuddlytroll

Out of interest, what are you referring to when you talk about Pre-Socratic? I thought he was considered the founder of Western Philosophy and there were no records before him.

philologos

Renaissance

There were plenty of philosophers prior to Socrates. The beginnings of philosophy are generally attributed to the Natural Philosophers starting with Thales of Miletus who argued that the arche or the first principle of existence was from water, Hereclitus of Ephesus, Anixamander, Xenophanes, Anixamenes, Pythagoras and so on would fit into this category. Then there were the Sophists, such as Protagoras who argued that man was the measure of all things.

You are correct to note that we have only fragments from these philosophers, and most of what we know is actually from later commentary, from Plato, Aristotle, and other people who would have had the works of these philosophers. Apparently though, it's difficult to understand what exactly those philosophers had in mind, as Aristotle and others use them in forming their own arguments. We cannot tell if Aristotle for example was spinning, twisting, or otherwise disingenuously used these writings.

As for Socrates, all we know of him comes through Plato's writings. Many of Plato's dialogues put Socrates into situations that he could have never possibly been in. For example, Socrates was said to have been older than Plato, in the Parmenides dialogue for example Plato puts a youthful Socrates in a dialogue with a youthful Aristotle. Aristotle was younger than Plato. We can only know very little about Socrates, and even then it is possible that Plato elaborated heavily on it.

sarkozy

I won't answer this question. It implies acceptance of an arbitrary periodised set of categories that do not and cannot capture the complexity of philosophical movements. The poll allows only one question, occluding other possible responses.

Ah no. Well, yeah. The poll defines '20th - 21st Century' as 'Existentialism, Postmodernism etc'. This papers over the vast array of different and contradictory philosophical positions in this time period. This sub-set refers exclusively to the generally phenomenological and post-structuralist variants. But what about logicism, ordinary language philosophy, analytic philosophy, American pragmatism, etc?

'Medieval' and 'Renaissance' are interesting sub-sets because a significant period of 'The Renaissance' was in the 'middle ages' (medieval). Arguably, then, the Renaissance entered the 'High Renaissance' period, though that's a term used more in art history than philosophy. In fact, I never rememember learning about 'Renaissance' philosophy, but I do remember learning about medieval philosophy from the 'Dark Ages'.

So all this periodisation is a bit problematic, really.

philologos

Renaissance

Fair enough, but the time does often dictate the content of the philosophy. For example Pre-Socratic philosophy is very different to 20th - 21st century philosophy for example. There are some continuing ideas no doubt, but each age does define a character of philosophy.

As for Renaissance, philosophers such as Nicholas of Cusa for example would come into this period. There does seem to be a defined period in philosophy. Perhaps I am mistaken though.

raah!

Post-Socratic

At the moment the pre-socratics are my favourite (though perhaps this is because I am currently engaged in studying them). I find studying them very exciting as they are unfettered by the influence of previous philosophers (apart from each other). In them you see the beginings of science, mathematics and the spirit of inquiry which has marked all philosophy to date. I like the systems they build, and the boldness of their hypotheses. The historical background and reasons why they would suddenly stop attributing every different event to a differetn deity is also something I enjoyed learning about alot. The term "free thinking" is no where more apt than when used to describe the pre-socratics. In my opinion.

Even interpretting the fragments is very enjoyable (though sometimes very frustrating) ,and manys the time I thought of trying to learn ancient greek. Thankfully I calmed down. And while you can trace the thought of many people back to plato or aristotle, you can trace many aspects of hte thought of plato or aristotle back to these first philosophers.

I also like modern philosophy, I think it would be hard for anyone to not enjoy reading the likes of descartes, hume, kant etc.

The periods I would be less interested in would be 19th centuary onwards, and medieval/renaissance

loveissucide

19th Century (Nihilism, scepticism etc)

My personal favourite is the era of The Enlightenment, primarily because it's possible to see how they were engaged with their environment, and the impact their thought has had since.

Black Swan

Postmodern is still evolving and of interest, especially such incomplete works as Derridean deconstruction that focuses on method, but lacks a comprehensive and formalized philosophy.

Cannibal Ox

I'm interested in 20th century philosophy, particularly Arendt, Heidegger, Foucault, Deleuze, and Jean Luc Nancy, though there are probably more I'm not interested/dislike with a passion in then I am, especially Fredric Jameson, Judith Butler, Guy Debord, and Baudrillard. I think the Enlightenment is interesting too, particularly Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, and Kant. Nietzsche too.

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Postmodern is still evolving and of interest, especially such incomplete works as Derridean deconstruction that focuses on method, but lacks a comprehensive and formalized philosophy.

Do you think it's in the spirit/s of postmodernism to construct a comprehensive and formalized system?

Nemi

19th Century (Nihilism, scepticism etc)

I went with 'Modern' in the end, although I'd say Aristotle and Hume are the two I enjoy most.

Black Swan

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Do you think it's in the spirit/s of postmodernism to construct a comprehensive and formalized system?

It may be problematic for a deconstructionist to construct a comprehensive and formalized system. This may be a good discussion topic for a new thread on our forum. Thank you.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

Philosophy itself is a rather big subject if one thinks about it. There are numerous different schools, different types, and philosophical periods. Generally in philosophy, although all periods can be used to contribute to an argument for one position often people specialise in one or more periods of philosophy that they find interesting.

From what I have read from this forum a lot of people seem to like the modern age coming after Descartes, Locke, Hume and so on. I personally find this interesting to a certain degree largely due to the question of epistemology. Can we know things innately, or do we know things only by sense perception (Esse est percipi in the logic of George Berkeley).

My personal favourite age of philosophy is the Medieval Age, which I think gets a bad rap for being called the Dark Ages since so much valuable philosophy was given to the world during that time, particularly through Augustine (His theory of knowledge is fascinating), Thomas Aquinas, and the Islamic thinkers such as Avicenna (Ibn Sena) and Avveroes (Ibn Rushd), and Moses Maimonides a Jewish rabbinical thinker, and the impact of the former Greeks and Classics to their philosophy as Aristotle was made available to the modern world again. I studied a whole module on this last Semester at university and found it fascinating in comparison to the modern philosophy (which although is interesting, tends to be the main focus of university philosophy).

What about ye? Tell us about your favourite age of philosophy - Poll coming, apologies for any inaccuracies that may be contained. I've included Eastern as a separate category as there has been little contact between it and the Western world.

Great post Jackass and fair play for getting into the above.
What course are you doing?

Strongly recommend getting:
"A history of western philosophy" by Mr. Russell. You'd love it.

My favourite period would be what I'd call the Enlightment - my least would post-modernism. Also some of the French existentialism stuff is cool.

philologos

Renaissance

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Great post Jackass and fair play for getting into the above.
What course are you doing?

I'm about to head into my last year of my BA in Computer Science & Philosophy at NUI Maynooth.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Strongly recommend getting:
"A history of western philosophy" by Mr. Russell. You'd love it.

It will be considered

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My favourite period would be what I'd call the Enlightment - my least would post-modernism. Also some of the French existentialism stuff is cool.

I've found that most people tend to like the Enlightenment, because it has pretty much set the course for much of 20th - 21st century philosophy as well. It is probably one of the most influential stages in philosophy after the Greeks, and that's a pretty big claim.

Cannibal Ox

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

It may be problematic for a deconstructionist to construct a comprehensive and formalized system. This may be a good discussion topic for a new thread on our forum. Thank you.

I think even referring to them as post-structuralists or postmodernists is problematic I suppose it only matters though if you absolutely agree with them. I mean, it is useful to call them post-structuralists, but it might not be in the spirit of their work either.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm about to head into my last year of my BA in Computer Science & Philosophy at NUI Maynooth.

I would like to do that! You wouldn't happen to have any suggestions for philosophers that deal with technology or science do you? I know Heidegger's piece, Katherine Hayles, and I'm going to get my hands on some of Bruno Latour's stuff next week, but I'm not really sure where else to go to.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've found that most people tend to like the Enlightenment, because it has pretty much set the course for much of 20th - 21st century philosophy as well. It is probably one of the most influential stages in philosophy after the Greeks, and that's a pretty big claim.

I think the Enlightenment is kind of "nice" too. I mean that, ignoring Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche (who may not strictly be Enlightenment philosophers anyway I suppose), when you come to post-WW2 philosophy, an awful lot of it is very...I dunno, I don't think depressing is the right word, but it isn't as exuberant or as hopeful as maybe Enlightenment philosophy was. You don't really get philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, or Kant, who genuinely seemed to believe in the amazing possibilities of human beings. After WWII, philosophy seemed to stop believing in the possibilities of human beings, and I think (I don't think a lot of Sarte...so I'm ignoring him) were a lot more concerned with critiquing the possibilities of human beings.

Maybe! I'm not sure if that makes sense...

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm about to head into my last year of my BA in Computer Science & Philosophy at NUI Maynooth.

Great stuff. Fair play to you. How do you find programming?

Tim Robbins

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

After WWII, philosophy seemed to stop believing in the possibilities of human beings, and I think (I don't think a lot of Sarte...so I'm ignoring him) were a lot more concerned with critiquing the possibilities of human beings.

Maybe! I'm not sure if that makes sense...

I think science usurped philosophy in the 20th century. Philosophy still has some uses particularly in structured and logical reasoning but in terms of knowledge - it's science.

philologos

Renaissance

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Great stuff. Fair play to you. How do you find programming?

Interesting. Still much to learn though!

It's a nice counterbalance to the philosophy.

Cannibal Ox: I haven't done much philosophy of science admittedly!

af_thefragile

Renaissance

I love medieval philosophy.
I find metaphysics and spirituality very fascinating.

I always felt science and metaphysics are two halves of the equation.
Science is the knowledge of the outward while metaphysics deals with the hidden inward.

ValJester

19th Century (Nihilism, scepticism etc)

af_thefragile wrote: »

I love medieval philosophy.
I find metaphysics and spirituality very fascinating.

I always felt science and metaphysics are two halves of the equation.
Science is the knowledge of the outward while metaphysics deals with the hidden inward.

Where ought one start with an exploration of Medieval Philosophy?

Manach

Renaissance

ValJester wrote: »

Where ought one start with an exploration of Medieval Philosophy?

As an FYI, "God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science", is a book I've started to read on the period. It is accessible and I'm enjoying it so far.

Also to Jakkass, good luck with the computer programming - as a QA type, I've always found Karl Popper's notion falsifiability a time saver & conform

philologos

Renaissance

ValJester - I would recommend Anthony Kenny's - Medieval Philosophy as well. It gives an overall jist to everything.

ValJester

19th Century (Nihilism, scepticism etc)

Jakkass wrote: »

ValJester - I would recommend Anthony Kenny's - Medieval Philosophy as well. It gives an overall jist to everything.

Thanks.I've always found the ideas of William Of Ockham and John The Scot interesting, and I regret not doing the module on History Of Irish Thought that was available to me in my second year at university.

Grievous

Eastern at the moment.
I really like The Tao Te Ching.
I am getting some Jedi vibes from it.
Anyone else read this short work?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I find Existentialism fascinating so twentieth century would definitely be one of the periods I find the most interesting.