Philosopher Death Match: Round Two

[DoomYoshi]

Round 1 is over, but you can still vote.

show: Results

[Army of GOD]

Thomas Hobbes mouth looks like a girl who hasn't shaved her cootch in years.

So, Serbia's mom.

[Dukasaur]

Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.

[Frigidus]

Machiavelli over Hobbes in bare knuckle boxing.

[ManBungalow]

Hobbes for the Calvin and Hobbes association.

[maxfaraday]

Hobbes for the Calvin and Hobbes association.

This.

[Metsfanmax]

Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.

I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

[Timminz]

I too, vote for the tiger.

[DoomYoshi]

Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

[Dukasaur]

Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.

I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

Of course I do. My answer to both of you is that everything was once part of philosophy. I was drawing the line at the modern definition.

[Metsfanmax]

Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.

I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

Of course I do. My answer to both of you is that everything was once part of philosophy. I was drawing the line at the modern definition.

I repeat: even by the modern definition, The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology.

[Dukasaur]

Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.

I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

Of course I do. My answer to both of you is that everything was once part of philosophy. I was drawing the line at the modern definition.

I repeat: even by the modern definition, The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology.

I'll take your word for it. I read it in high school, and that was something more than 30 years ago, and I'm willing to assume you've read it more recently. My recollection is that it was just practical "rule-of-thumb" type advice driven entirely by pragmatic concerns.

[nietzsche]

It's so difficult to compare philosophers, every philosopher "stands on the shoulders of giants", Hobbes had the priviledge of reading Machiavelli's work and others Machiavelli didn't. And almost all philosophers will look naive or incomplete 50 years later when the new philosophers are reading their work.

[Phatscotty]

[DoomYoshi]

It's so difficult to compare philosophers, every philosopher "stands on the shoulders of giants", Hobbes had the priviledge of reading Machiavelli's work and others Machiavelli didn't. And almost all philosophers will look naive or incomplete 50 years later when the new philosophers are reading their work.

Mach is winning though, so I wouldn't worry too much about unfair advantage.

Anyways, I'm taking nominations for the next round. Just PM me a round you want to see. I don't read too many modern philosophers, except for Zizek, so if any knows any modernists it would be nice. On the other hand, more people can be assumed to have at least a loose grasp of older (pre-WW2) philosophers.