If you could have a philosopher at home for the evening...

[Asta Kask]

...and language and vital signs were no object, whom would you choose?

I think Hypatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia) would be a fascinating companion. She taught mathematics, philosophy and astronomy in Alexandria. But she awoke the anger of the mob with her thinking and dressing like a man instead of staying in the kitchen like a woman should, so they dragged her down from her chariot, flayed her alive and set fire to her.

After this, the good people of Alexandria were not troubled by original thinkers for a long time.

[thubby]

plato, of course. his ideas are still applicable today.

[Blue Ghost]

C.S. Lewis. I'm really fond of that guy, and would be all the more if I could have him over for a chat over dinner.

[DeadManSleeping]

Epicurus. Not much on the front of science and mathematics, but hey, I'm not good at those things either.

[Comet]

Can I have Carl Jung? We could boot up my Playstation 2 and play the Persona games all night long, with me handling the controls and Jung delivering hilarious commentary every step of the way.

[The Rose Dragon]

Nietzche. Just so I could punch him in the face. Over and over again.

[DeadManSleeping]

Nietzche. Just so I could punch him in the face. Over and over again.

Aw, c'mon, it's not HIS fault that people all read his little joke book as a serious document and left all his other work to gather dust.

[Ranger Mattos]

Bill Watterson.

...what?

[The Rose Dragon]

Aw, c'mon, it's not HIS fault that people all read his little joke book as a serious document and left all his other work to gather dust.

Also Sprach Zarathustra was a joke book?

Well, that makes much more sense.

[DeadManSleeping]

No, Also Sprach Zarathustra was composed to inspire Richard Strauss to write one of the most epic pieces of music ever written.

[Zocelot]

Also Sprach Zarathustra was a joke book?

Well, that makes much more sense.

ASZ is rather wildly misinterpreted, though Nietzsche's writings were still rather extremist and provocative.

As to the actual question, I'm hesitant to say Voltaire, because I feel like he'd be absolutely no fun to hang out with, but I would like to discuss his work with him.

[Aidan305]

This thread reminds me of Van Loon's Lives (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Van-Loons-Lives-interesting-historical/dp/B0006APPPE)

I'd probably go with Aristotle.

[DeadManSleeping]

Ah, whoops, it looks like I mixed up Nietzsche and Machiavelli.

N's works were TOTALLY misinterpreted at the time they were published, though. Poor guy, hating the Nazis and then watching them use his words to push their agenda. I think he's gotten enough face-punches as it is.

[Dr.Epic]

Eric Arthur Blair (I love his work)

If you know the title he's more commonly known as I'll send you a cookie.

[Asta Kask]

I know, but only through the magic of google.

George Orwell

Edit: I deliberately refrained from defining philosopher. As long as you don't nominate Justin Bieber I'm happy.

[Sneak]

David Hume, so I could give him a well-deserved high five.

[Eloel]

Aristotle. I can't miss this opportunity to say 'haha you suck' to a historical figure.

[doliest]

Machiavelli- the guy seems like a ball to be around.

If I could have two though, I'd involve Frued and De Sade. I wouldn't actually stay, because if I did, I'd be a babbling wreck out of an HP Lovecraft work.

[Moff Chumley]

Doug Adams. C'mon, you know I'm right.

Also, Hobbes. So I call him an emo kid and laugh. LAUGH. :smalltongue:

[AtopTheMountain]

Hm... My choices would include C.S. Lewis, David Lipscomb, Nicolas Berdyaev, and Leo Tolstoy.

[Eldan]

Aristotle, probably. I mean, he was not only the teacher of Alexander the Great, he also wrote some damn impressive zoology books. Convincing an entire army to go collect specimens for you from greece to India? Badass.

[Jallorn]

Benjamin Franklin. He seems like he would be fascinating to talk to, and I'd love to show him all the new advancements in science. He'd love it. It also helps that he's my great-great-great-great-great-great uncle.

[mucat]

All good choices, but I'm going to agree with Asta and say Hypatia would be absolutely fascinating. Thing is, I wouldn't send her back to face the mob. She can stay in our time, paradoxes be damned.

(It's rare that I actually get angry over the treatment of someone centuries in the past. For me, Hypatia is one of those rare cases.)

[Copacetic]

Bill Watterson.

...what?

This.


Also so he can teach me how to draw. :smallredface:

[CynicalAvocado]

karl marx. i'd love to hear his take on classes

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

karl marx. i'd love to hear his take on classes

Read his works, then... :smalltongue:

[CynicalAvocado]

Read his works, then... :smalltongue:

and where exactly am i to find a copy? go to wal-mart? online shopping is out of the question because i dont use plastic.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

and where exactly am i to find a copy? go to wal-mart? online shopping is out of the question because i dont use plastic.

Most book shops and libraries should carry a copy of The Communist Manifesto at the very least.

[CynicalAvocado]

Most book shops and libraries should carry a copy of The Communist Manifesto at the very least.

true, but printed word is fallable. i'd rather get it straight from the proverbial horse's mouth. i'd invite lenin too, but i don't think he'd like me

[mucat]

and where exactly am i to find a copy? go to wal-mart? online shopping is out of the question because i dont use plastic.

Marx's stuff is public domain by now; the Gutenberg Project has the text of many of his books (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?default_prefix=author_id&query=46).

As you say, the books aren't the same as talking with the author...but still, the "where can I find a copy" question is an easy one. :smallwink:

[SurlySeraph]

Probably John Stuart Mill, though I'd probably learn more from a philosopher I don't agree as much with. Epictetus, perhaps, since he's the greatest philosopher-badass I can think of.


ASZ is rather wildly misinterpreted, though Nietzsche's writings were still rather extremist and provocative.

As to the actual question, I'm hesitant to say Voltaire, because I feel like he'd be absolutely no fun to hang out with, but I would like to discuss his work with him.

See, I think Voltaire would be lots of fun. Probably extremely sarcastic, and not the kind of guy you'd want to see every day, but tons of fun for an evening if you keep him happy and drunk enough. Which the preponderance of science and reason in modern times would probably do handily.

[CynicalAvocado]

You don't even need bookshop or library. Marx's stuff is mostly public domain by now; the Gutenberg Project has the text of many of his books (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?default_prefix=author_id&query=46).

thank you friend

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

true, but printed word is fallable. i'd rather get it straight from the proverbial horse's mouth. i'd invite lenin too, but i don't think he'd like me

I don't think that can be applied to Marx, but OK.

Personally, I'd have a lot to ask him about and a lot to show him of the world since his death - particularly regarding the failures of the Soviet Union and the effects of late capitalism, the welfare state and the various successes and failures of socialist solutions around the world... it would be an incredibly interesting discussion indeed.

[CynicalAvocado]

I don't think that can be applied to Marx, but OK.

Personally, I'd have a lot to ask him about and a lot to show him of the world since his death - particularly regarding the failures of the Soviet Union and the effects of late capitalism, the welfare state and the various successes and failures of socialist solutions around the world... it would be an incredibly interesting discussion indeed.

as would i, friend.... as would i.

[Raistlin1040]

I really like Jean-Paul Sartre, even when I disagree with him. Still, Sartre was a little too modern, and a lot of his ideas came from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Kierkegaard would probably be a better person to have dinner with, because he'd probably be a lot friendlier, but I think I'd have a better conversation with Nietzsche.

[Moff Chumley]

See, my problem with Nietzsche is that he has five consecutive consonants in his name, and call me racist, but I can't trust that. I'm sure he's a plenty nice guy in person, but at least in the domain of the written word, how are you supposed to trust a name like that? :smallsigh:

[mucat]

Awww....now you made Dr. Hirschsprung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hirschsprung) cry...

[Moff Chumley]

That's seven. It's a prettier number, much more trustworthy. :smallbiggrin:

[mucat]

That's six. It's an even number, much more trustworthy. :smallbiggrin:

I count seven.

[Moff Chumley]

So did I. What's your point?

*exit: stage left!*

[Sneak]

Little known fact: Nietzsche's name is actually spelled N-I-E-UNCERTAIN SCRIBBLING-E.

The more you know.

[Trog]

If I could have a philosopher at home for the evening?

Likely there'd be drinking. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc) >>

[DragonOfLies]

Schopenhauer. No real reason, he just seems like a nice fellow. I've always liked his writing style and general pessimism.

[The Valiant Turtle]

Highest on my list would be Fred Rogers. Also near the top is one living person, the current Dalai Lama.

[Ippolit]

Augustine of Hippo, and I'd tell him: "You used to be cool man." :smalltongue:

No but seriously though, I think I would pick a young Ludwig Wittgenstein. I'd be very interested in hearing him talk about the Tractatus. Not that I'd understand much, but still...

[Ichneumon]

Either Kant, Rousseau or Rawls.

[ghost_warlock]

Marcel Duchamp.

What?

Václav Havel would also be interesting.

[Dr.Epic]

I know, but only through the magic of google.

George Orwell

Edit: I deliberately refrained from defining philosopher. As long as you don't nominate Justin Bieber I'm happy.

I'd give you a cookie, but this guy ate it:

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/5664/cookiemonster.jpg

Also, Justin Bieber counts more as an eldritch abomination than anything else.

[Cyrion]

I'd probably go for St. Thomas Aquinas because the simplicity and beauty of his faith in his Confessions are stunning, or I'd choose Alexis de Tocqueville because his political thinking was amazing and he's supposed to have been quite the witty companion.

For someone modern, I've heard that Ernst von Glasersfeld was quite the dinner companion, and I'd love to spar with him in educational philosophy.

[TSGames]

I'd probably go for St. Thomas Aquinas because the simplicity and beauty of his faith in his Confessions are stunning...
The Confessions was a truly beautiful and moving work.
But perhaps you mean to say Saint Augustine?

[Cyrion]

No, I was thinking Aquinas, but I guess what I have is "A Selection of Works" and mistook that for Confessions.

[Lillith]

I'd like to invite Rousseau then, just to show him how women can be rational and then using that rationality to 'emotionally' club him to death for his book 'Emile' and all his ideas about women should stay into the private sphere and never show them in public again. Yeah, I'd buy a baseball bat before that meeting, which is a very rational decision I think. :smallbiggrin:

Oh you mean a philosopher to actually talk to... hmm... I have to think about that for a bit. I find some of them interesting, though do not really agree on them. *ponders* Maybe Kant.

[pendell]

Martin Luther. After the man ditched his monastic vows he had a reputation as QUITE a serious drinker.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Greensleeve]

I really like Jean-Paul Sartre, even when I disagree with him. Still, Sartre was a little too modern, and a lot of his ideas came from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Kierkegaard would probably be a better person to have dinner with, because he'd probably be a lot friendlier, but I think I'd have a better conversation with Nietzsche.

I'm with Raistlin (partially) when it comes to Kierkegaard. I might even (almost, maybe) be able to speak with him in his own language (not likely as it's Danish... I mean, come on!). However, I think he might be a bit drab and depressing to speak to for too long. It's a surprisingly difficult decision.

[mucat]

Archimedes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes) count as a philosopher? Damn, would he be fun to talk to. Since I'm already cheating by trying not to send Hypatia back to face her murderers, I might try to cheat again and get both Archimides and Hypatia at the party...

Hey, actually, I wouldn't need to cheat. I'd have Archimedes cheat for me:


Step 1: Invite Archimedes.

Step 2: Say, "Hey, Archimedes, can you rig this time machine to carry additional passengers?"

Step 3: Of course he can. He's frikkin' Archimedes.

Step 4: Pick up Hypatia (in February of 415 AD), Leonardo da Vinci, Mark Twain, and Albert Einstein.

Step 5: Now that's a dinner party.

Step 6: "Hey, Archimedes, next month kind of sucks for Hypatia. Can you fix it so she can settle in the era of her choice, without some paradox collapsing the spacetime continuum?"

Step 7: See Step 3.

Step 8: Archimedes himself, of course, can go back to his own time to face his scheduled fate. I mean, "Please move away from my circles" is just too awesome to delete from history.

I love it when a plan comes together. :smallbiggrin:

[mikeejimbo]

If we're stretching it enough to include Archimedes, can I count Ada Lovelace?

Pour some wine, put on some music, see where the night takes us.

[Amiel]

I'd like to have a productive conversation with Sappho; said conversation will inevitably delve into the meanings of life.

[Flame of Anor]

I'd give you a cookie, but this guy ate it:

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/5664/cookiemonster.jpg

Also, Justin Bieber counts more as an eldritch abomination than anything else.

Whoa! That's got to be 3,000 pixels! Give us some warning, please.

[Thes Hunter]

I like Turtle's idea, I try to learn more from that man whenever I can.



However, I am going to go with my standard answer and say Schrodinger... because anyone who makes as many interesting allegories to Quantum Mechanics as him would be very fascinating dinner conversation.

[Asta Kask]

Archimedes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes) count as a philosopher?

He's not Justin Bieber in disguise, is he?

Ok, he's a philosopher. :smallbiggrin:

[SilentNight]

Bill Watterson.


YES

I think that'd I'd have to go with Ralph Waldo Emerson actually, he's been a big influence on me these past couple of years.

[Amiel]

Possibly also Descartes; I'll confuse him by saying that one can simultaneously not think and am, and that pet rocks with personalities exist; and happily adopted into loving homes.

[mucat]

Possibly also Descartes; I'll confuse him by saying that one can simultaneously not think and am, and that pet rocks with personalities exist; and happily adopted into loving homes.

That wasn't what Descartes meant by "I think, therefore I am." He wasn't saying you need to think in order to exist, or that you would stop existing if you stopped thinking.

He was trying to decide whether the world was real or an illusion, and his first step was "Well, I know I exist -- not necessarily my body, but at least my mind -- because otherwise I couldn't be thinking these thoughts." Which he summed up in the much pithier form cogito ergo sum, but it was clear from context what he meant. He was taking his thoughts as evidence that he must exist, not as the reason he existed.

Solid logic so far, but from there his steps got much sillier; he really just ended up "proving" that everything he wanted to believe about the universe was true.

[snoopy13a]

Socrates because he was awesome in Bill and Ted :smalltongue:

Seriously, I suppose Hume.

[Amiel]

That wasn't what Descartes meant by "I think, therefore I am." He wasn't saying you need to think in order to exist, or that you would stop existing if you stopped thinking.

He was trying to decide whether the world was real or an illusion, and his first step was "Well, I know I exist -- not necessarily my body, but at least my mind -- because otherwise I couldn't be thinking these thoughts." Which he summed up in the much pithier form cogito ergo sum, but it was clear from context what he meant. He was taking his thoughts as evidence that he must exist, not as the reason he existed.

Solid logic so far, but from there his steps got much sillier; he really just ended up "proving" that everything he wanted to believe about the universe was true.

Oh, I was making a joke about the whole: is reality just an illusion, and whether thinking should really be construed as the basis for the assumption of thought underlying and underpinning the construct of tangibility.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Averroes.... just because I have to make an essay on him and his works for next weel. >.> <.<

[Om]

Marx. We could go on a pub crawl and hurl cobbles at street lights

[Lord Thurlvin]

I'd like to invite Rousseau then, just to show him how women can be rational and then using that rationality to 'emotionally' club him to death for his book 'Emile' and all his ideas about women should stay into the private sphere and never show them in public again. Yeah, I'd buy a baseball bat before that meeting, which is a very rational decision I think. :smallbiggrin:


I think the time I would spend with Rousseau would consist of me yelling at him about how I think he's wrong to assume humans are peaceful and kind in the "state of nature" (or whatever it is he calls it).
I would much rather be able to talk to Kierkegaard, though. Mostly because I had such a hard time understanding what he was actually saying in Fear and Trembling.